[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 123 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38081-38086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146; FRL-10009-22-Region 9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Ventura
County; 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to conditionally approve portions of two state implementation
plan (SIP) submissions from the State of California to meet Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the
Ventura County, California (``Ventura County'') ozone nonattainment
area. The two SIP submissions include the ``Final 2016 Ventura County
Air Quality Management Plan,'' and the Ventura County portion of the
``2018 Updates to
[[Page 38082]]
the California State Implementation Plan.'' In this action, the EPA
refers to these submittals collectively as the ``2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP.'' The 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP addresses the
nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the
requirements for an emissions inventory, attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures,
contingency measures, among others; and establishes motor vehicle
emissions budgets. In a separate final rule, the EPA took final action
to approve the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP as meeting all the
applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements except for the
contingency measures requirement. In this action, the EPA is taking
final action to conditionally approve the contingency measures element
of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.
DATES: This rule will be effective on July 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-4151, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of the Proposed Action
On December 20, 2019, the EPA proposed to approve, under CAA
section 110(k)(3), or to conditionally approve, under CAA section
110(k)(4), all or portions of submittals from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) of revisions to the California SIP for the
Ventura County ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\
The relevant SIP revisions include Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District's (VCAPCD's or ``District's'') Final 2016 Ventura County Air
Quality Management Plan (``2016 Ventura County AQMP''), and the Ventura
County portion of CARB's 2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update''). Collectively, we refer to
these revisions as the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, and we refer to
our December 20, 2019 proposed rule as the ``proposed rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 70109. Ventura County lies within California's South
Central Coast Air Basin, which includes the counties of Santa
Barbara and San Luis Obispo in addition to Ventura County. The
Ventura County ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
includes the entire county except for the Channel Islands of Anacapa
and San Nicolas Islands. See 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed conditional approval of the contingency measures
element of the 2016 Ventura County AQMP relied on specific commitments:
(1) From the District to modify an existing rule or rules that would
provide for additional emissions reductions in the event that Ventura
County fails to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone or
fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date,
and (2) from CARB to submit the revised District rule(s) to the EPA as
a SIP revision within 12 months of our final action.\2\ For more
information on the SIP revision submittals and related commitments,
please see our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, Air
Pollution Control Officer, VCAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB; and letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the
ozone standards,\3\ area designations, related SIP revision
requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's implementing regulations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements
Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR''). To summarize, the Ventura County ozone
nonattainment area is classified as Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP was developed to address all the
SIP requirements that apply to a Serious nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS other than the SIP requirements for new source review
and reasonably available control technology previously addressed in
separate submittals and EPA actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The 2008 ozone NAAQS
is 0.075 parts per million (eight-hour average). CARB refers to
reactive organic gases (ROG) in some of its ozone-related
submittals. The CAA and the EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather
than ROG, but both terms cover essentially the same set of gases. In
this final rule, we use the Federal term (VOC) to refer to this set
of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements
contained in the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, evaluated them for
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and proposed to
conclude that they meet all applicable requirements with the exception
of the contingency measures element. On February 27, 2020, the EPA took
final action to approve all the elements of the 2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP except for the contingency measures element.\4\ In our
February 27, 2020 final rule, we indicated that we would be taking
final action on the contingency measures element in a separate final
rule. This action is our final action on the contingency measures
element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 85 FR 11814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the contingency measures element of the 2016
Ventura County Ozone SIP, in our proposed rule, we evaluated the
element for compliance with the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
We explained that the key is that the statute requires that contingency
measures provide for additional emissions reductions that are not
relied on for RFP or attainment and that the purpose of contingency
measures is to provide continued emissions reductions while the plan is
being revised to meet the missed milestone or attainment date. We
further explained that neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing
regulations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS require that contingency measures
achieve a specific amount of emissions reductions, but that the EPA
will evaluate that on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts and
circumstances.
In our proposed rule, in light of the Bahr decision,\5\ we
determined that the contingency measures element of the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP could not be fully approved without supplementation by
the District and CARB. However, we also determined that the element
could be conditionally approved as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based upon
commitments from the District and CARB to adopt and submit a revised
rule or rules with provisions designed to
[[Page 38083]]
take effect if the area fails to meet an RFP milestone or fails to
attain by the applicable attainment date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (``Bahr'')
(rejecting early-implementation of contingency measures and
concluding that a contingency measure under CAA section 172(c)(9)
must take effect at the time the area fails to make RFP or attain by
the applicable attainment date, not before).
\6\ See 84 FR 70109, 70123-70125 from the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see our proposed rule for more information concerning the
background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the
rationale for conditional approval of the contingency measures element
of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on December
20, 2019, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on January 21, 2020. During this period, the EPA received five
anonymous comments and one comment letter submitted by Air Law for All
on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for
Environmental Health, and Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas
(collectively referred to herein as ``CBD'').
In our February 27, 2020 final action on the 2016 Ventura County
Ozone SIP other than the contingency measures element, we explained
that the EPA was not responding to the five anonymous commenters
because their comments are either not adverse or not pertinent to the
proposed action. We also indicated that the comment letter from CBD
relates solely to our proposed conditional approval of the contingency
measures element, and that we would be addressing CBD's comments in a
separate final rule on the contingency measures element. We address
CBD's comments in the following paragraphs of this final rule.
Comment #1: CBD recounts the background leading to the Bahr
decision and provides a discussion of policy implications of that
decision. CBD also provides its negative critique of the LEAN decision
\7\ and asserts that EPA must interpret the contingency measures
requirement consistent with the Bahr decision on a nationwide basis and
not just within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (``LEAN'')
(upholding contingency measures that were previously required and
implemented where they were in excess of the attainment
demonstration and RFP SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response #1: In our proposed rule, we explain that we have reviewed
the contingency measures element of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP
in light of the Bahr decision. In other words, for the purposes of our
review and action on the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP, we accept the
Bahr decision as governing our review of the contingency measures
element. The issue of extending the Bahr decision with respect to the
contingency measures requirement outside of the jurisdiction of the
Ninth Circuit is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment #2: Because the District did not quantify the potential
additional emissions reductions from any of the three prospective
contingency measures, CBD asserts that the reductions must be assumed
to be de minimis.
Response #2: In our proposed rule, we acknowledged that the
potential contingency measures that were identified by the District
would not achieve one year's worth of RFP, given the types of measures
under consideration and the magnitude of emissions reductions
constituting one year's worth of RFP in this nonattainment area. We
disagree that it is necessary to have an estimate of the emissions
reductions for purposes of proposing a conditional approval. However,
in response to this comment, the District and CARB developed
preliminary estimates of the reductions that would likely be achieved
by the contingency measures under consideration, if triggered by a
failure to achieve an RFP milestone or failure to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\8\ In developing the
preliminary estimates, the District narrowed the list of prospective
contingency measures to a single one, i.e., amendments to Rule 74.2
(``Architectural Coatings'').\9\ We have reviewed the preliminary
estimates for the amendments to Rule 74.2, and find that they are based
on reasonable assumptions and factors. Based on the preliminary
estimates, emissions reductions from amendments to Rule 74.2 would
likely be in the range of 0.02 to 0.06 tons per day (tpd) of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), which amount to approximately 2 to 5 percent
of one year's worth of RFP.\10\ As we anticipated in our proposed rule,
the reductions would not amount to one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See email dated February 26, 2020 and attachment from Sylvia
Vanderspek, CARB, to Ali Ghasemi, VCAPCD, et al.
\9\ See email dated May 8, 2020, from Ali Ghasemi, VCAPCD, to
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX.
\10\ As noted in the proposed rule at 70125, one year's worth of
RFP is 1.1 tpd of VOC or 0.8 tpd of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBD asserts that, if the EPA or the District develop preliminary
emissions estimates for the prospective contingency measures, then the
EPA must necessarily re-propose action on the contingency measures
element. We disagree and find that the development of the estimates and
presentation herein is a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and
CBD's comments. The quantification of emissions reductions does not
affect our rationale for our proposed conditional approval of the
contingency measures element because we assumed that the reductions,
whatever they would ultimately be, would not be equivalent to one
year's worth of RFP.
Comment #3: CBD asserts that consideration of surplus emissions
reductions from already-implemented measures in evaluating the adequacy
of contingency measures is functionally no different than simply
approving the already-implemented measures as contingency measures,
which is inconsistent with the Bahr decision. CBD also asserts that the
EPA's approach in this action would allow states to meet the
contingency measures requirement through submittal of token de minimis
contingency measures so long as already-implemented measures provide
for surplus emissions reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP.
CBD views the EPA's consideration of surplus reductions from already-
implemented measures as relying on a factor Congress has not intended
the Agency to consider in evaluating the adequacy of contingency
measures under CAA section 172(c)(9).
Response #3: First, the EPA does not interpret CAA section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) as allowing states to meet the requirements
through submittal merely of token or de minimis contingency measures.
States must include contingency measures in nonattainment plans that
will be triggered in the event of a failure to meet RFP or failure to
attain. However, the number of such contingency measures, or the amount
of emissions reductions that such measures need to achieve, may vary.
As explained in the proposal, the EPA considers it appropriate to take
into account the full facts and circumstances at issue in a given
nonattainment area when evaluating the adequacy of contingency
measures, and this may include approving contingency measures that
achieve less than the one year's worth of RFP in that area. The EPA
emphasizes that it does not interpret the CAA to require states to
adopt only token or de minimis contingency measures; it interprets the
CAA to require contingency measures appropriate for the area.
Second, we disagree that, if the EPA takes into account the total
facts and circumstances in a given nonattainment area when assessing
the adequacy of contingency measures, and in particular the amount of
emissions reductions that such measures will achieve, that this
[[Page 38084]]
contradicts Congressional intent. The specific explicit factors
Congress intended the Agency to use in evaluating contingency measures
are set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and include
specificity (``implementation of specific measures''), timing
(``measures to be undertaken'' and ``to take effect''), triggers (if
the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable [NAAQS] or if the
area fails to meet any applicable milestone), federal enforceability
(``included in the [SIP]''), and readiness (measures must be designed
to take effect without further action by the state or the EPA). We will
review the contingency measure that is the subject of the conditional
approval with those factors in mind when we receive the submittal of
the revised District rule as a SIP revision from CARB.
Neither CAA section 172(c)(9) nor 182(c)(9) contain language
implying that the factors discussed above are the only factors for the
Agency to consider. Neither section specifies the magnitude of
emissions reductions that contingency measures must achieve as an
explicit factor for the EPA to consider, although consideration of the
magnitude is appropriate in determining whether the contingency measure
or measures submitted by the state meet the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Consideration of the magnitude of
emissions reductions is appropriate because contingency measures serve
a remedial function where an area fails to achieve an RFP milestone or
fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and RFP
and attainment are achieved through emissions reductions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), 171(1),
182(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the CAA does not include the magnitude of emissions
reductions as a specific explicit consideration, the CAA also does not
prescribe how the EPA is to evaluate that question. As such, the EPA is
not relying on a factor that Congress did not intend the EPA to
consider when the Agency considers the emissions reductions from
already-implemented measures that are surplus to those needed for RFP
or attainment within a given nonattainment area when evaluating whether
the state's contingency measure submittal meets CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).
Comment #4: CBD asserts that contingency measures should at a
minimum equal one year's worth of RFP and asserts that CAA section
182(g) provides statutory support for the interpretation that
contingency measures should provide for one year's worth of RFP.
Response #4: Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations
for the ozone NAAQS establish a specific amount of emissions reductions
that implementation of contingency measures must achieve. However,
consistent with our long-standing guidance, we agree that contingency
measures should generally provide for emissions reductions
approximately equivalent to one year's worth of progress, which, for
Serious ozone nonattainment areas such as Ventura County, amounts to
reductions of 3 percent of the RFP baseline emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area.
CBD finds statutory support in CAA section 182(g) for the EPA's
recommendation that contingency measures should generally provide for
one year's worth of progress. We do not disagree that our
recommendation concerning emissions reductions from contingency
measures comports generally with the statutory scheme for attainment
planning. However, like sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), section
182(g) does not explicitly identify the magnitude of reductions that
contingency measures must achieve nor does not it address how to
evaluate the reductions from contingency measures in light of the facts
and circumstances of a given nonattainment area.
In making the recommendation that contingency measures typically
achieve one year's worth of RFP, the EPA has considered the overarching
purpose of such measures in the context of attainment planning. The
purpose of emissions reductions from implementation of contingency
measures is to ensure that, in the event of a failure to meet an RFP
milestone or a failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the state will continue to make progress toward attainment though
additional emissions reductions at a rate similar to that specified
under the RFP requirements. The intent is that the state will achieve
the emissions reductions from the contingency measures while conducting
additional control measure development and implementation as necessary
to correct the RFP shortfall or as part of a new attainment
demonstration plan.\12\ The facts and circumstances of a given
nonattainment area may justify larger or smaller amounts of emissions
reductions for contingency measure purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 57 FR 13498, at 13512 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing a SIP revision for compliance with CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the EPA evaluates whether the contingency
measure or measures would provide emissions reductions that, when
considered with surplus emissions reductions from other measures,
ensure sufficient continued progress in the event of a failure to
achieve an RFP milestone or to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. We continue to evaluate the sufficiency of continued
progress that will result from contingency measures in light of our
guidance, but in appropriate circumstances do not believe that the
contingency measures themselves must provide for one year's worth of
RFP. Such appropriate circumstances include situations in which
sufficient progress would be maintained by the contingency measures and
surplus emissions reductions from other sources while the state
proceeds to develop and implement additional control measures as
necessary to correct the RFP shortfall or as part of a new attainment
demonstration plan. In other words, if there are additional emissions
reductions projected to occur after the RFP milestone years or the
attainment year that a state has not relied upon for purposes of RFP or
attainment or to meet other nonattainment plan requirements, and that
result from measures the state has not adopted as contingency measures,
then those reductions may support EPA approval of contingency measures
identified by the state even if the contingency measures would result
in less than one year's worth of RFP in appropriate circumstances.
As to whether the contingency measure, once adopted, would provide
for sufficient continued progress in the event of a failure to achieve
an RFP milestone or a failure to attain the NAAQS, we reviewed the
documentation provided in the 2018 SIP Update of ``surplus''
reductions, as clarified by CARB in August 2019 from CARB's already-
adopted mobile source control program in the two RFP milestone years
and in the year following the attainment year. For the Ventura County
nonattainment area, CARB's estimates of ``surplus'' reductions in the
RFP milestone years (5.1 tpd of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in
2020 and 7.1 tpd of NOX in 2017) are 6 to 9 times greater
than one year's worth of progress (0.8 tpd of NOX).\13\
[[Page 38085]]
With respect to the year after the attainment year, CARB estimates that
NOX emissions in Ventura County will be approximately 0.9
tpd lower in 2021 than in the 2020 attainment year due to mobile source
controls and vehicle turnover, and thus continued emissions reductions
are assured in the year after the attainment year even before
accounting for the emissions reductions from the to-be-adopted local
contingency measure.\14\ As such, we conclude that the to-be-adopted
District contingency measure need not in itself achieve one year's
worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Based on the emissions estimates and projections shown in
table 4 of the proposed rule. More specifically, the estimate of the
RFP milestone surplus as ranging from 5.1 tpd to 7.1 tpd of
NOX is based on the surplus in terms of percentages
(range of 19.6% (in 2000) to 27.4% (in 2017)) times the 2011
baseline NOX emissions level of 26.0 tpd. The proposed
rule cited a range of 6.5 tpd to 7.1 tpd for the RPF surplus, but
those estimates were based on the 2018 SIP Update and not the
updated RFP demonstration summarized in table 4 of the proposed
rule.
\14\ See pages A-9 and A-10 of the 2018 SIP Update. As shown on
pages A-7 and A-8 of the 2018 SIP Update, VOC emissions are also
expected to decrease between 2020 and 2021 (by 0.3 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we anticipate that the emissions reductions from the
contingency measure ultimately adopted by the District will be
sufficient, although we expect that it will achieve less than 1.1 tpd
of VOC or 0.8 tpd of NOX reductions (i.e., one year's worth
of RFP), because other surplus emission reductions measures (not relied
upon directly to meet the statutory contingency measure requirement or
any other nonattainment plan requirement including RFP or attainment)
will ensure sufficient continued progress in the event of a failure to
achieve an RFP milestone or a failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Therefore, we expect the contingency
measure, once adopted and submitted, to be sufficient to remedy the
deficiency in the contingency measures element of the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP, and the commitment to submit such a contingency
measure as an appropriate basis for a conditional approval.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the
EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve as a revision to
the California SIP the contingency measures element of the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP, submitted by CARB on April 11, 2017 and December 5,
2018, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for RFP and attainment contingency measures.\15\ Our
conditional approval is based on commitments by the District and CARB
to supplement the contingency measures element of the 2016 Ventura
County Ozone SIP through submission, as a SIP revision (within one year
of the effective date of our final conditional approval action), of a
revised District rule that would add new limits or other requirements
if an RFP milestone is not met or if Ventura County fails to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ More specifically, we are conditionally approving chapter 7
(``Contingency Measures'') of the Final 2016 Ventura County Air
Quality Management Plan, as submitted on April 11, 2017, and chapter
III.C (``Contingency Measures'') of the 2018 Updates to the
California State Implementation Plan, as submitted on December 5,
2018.
\16\ Letter dated August 16, 2019, from Michael Villegas, Air
Pollution Control Officer, VCAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB; letter dated August 30, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 conditionally approves state plans as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2020. 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
[[Page 38086]]
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 27, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(514)(ii)(A)(6)
and (c)(532)(ii)(A)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(514) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,
adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter III (``SIP Elements for Ventura
County''), section III.C (``Contingency Measures''); only.
* * * * *
(532) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Final 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, adopted
February 14, 2017, chapter 7 (``Contingency Measures''), only.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.248 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.248 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
* * * * *
(j) The EPA is conditionally approving the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
with respect to the contingency measures requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The conditional approval is based on a
commitment from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(District) in a letter dated August 16, 2019, to adopt a specific rule
revision, and a commitment from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) dated August 30, 2019, to submit the amended District rule to
the EPA within 12 months of the effective date of the final conditional
approval. If the District or CARB fail to meet their commitments within
one year of the effective date of the final conditional approval, the
conditional approval is treated as a disapproval.
[FR Doc. 2020-11931 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P