[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57714-57721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19162]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0241; FRL-10014-24-Region 9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California;
Coachella Valley; 2008 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 approve portions of two state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Coachella Valley ozone
nonattainment area (``Coachella Valley''). The two SIP revisions
include the portions of the ``Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan''
and the ``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan''
that address ozone in the Coachella Valley. These submittals address
the nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
including the requirements for an emissions inventory, emissions
statements, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress,
reasonably available control measures, contingency measures, and motor
vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA is taking final action to approve
these submittals as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area
requirements except for the contingency measure requirements, for which
the EPA is deferring action.
DATES: This rule will be effective on October 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0241. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3963 or [email protected].
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of the Proposed Action
On January 17, 2020 (85 FR 2949), the EPA proposed to approve,
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(k)(3), and to conditionally
approve, under CAA section 110(k)(4), portions of submittals from the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD or ``District'') as revisions to the
California SIP for the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area.\1\
The relevant SIP revisions include the SCAQMD's Final 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan (``2016 AQMP'') and CARB's 2018 Updates to the
California State Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update'').
Collectively, we refer to the relevant portions of the two SIP
revisions as the ``2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP,'' and we refer to
our January 17, 2020 proposed rule as the ``proposed rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Coachella Valley is located within Riverside County, and
its boundaries generally align with the Riverside County portion of
the Salton Sea Air Basin. For a precise description of the
geographic boundaries of the Coachella Valley, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the
ozone standards,\2\ area designations, and related SIP revision
requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's implementing regulations for
the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR''). To summarize, the Coachella
Valley ozone nonattainment area is classified as Severe for the 2008
ozone standards, and the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP was developed
to address the requirements for this Severe nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 1-hour ozone NAAQS
is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (one-hour average), the 1997 ozone
NAAQS is 0.08 ppm (eight-hour average), and the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
0.075 ppm (eight-hour average). CARB refers to reactive organic
gases (ROG) in some of its ozone-related submittals. The CAA and the
EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather than ROG, but both terms
cover essentially the same set of gases. In this final rule, we use
the term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we also discussed a decision issued by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA (``South Coast II'') \3\ that vacated certain portions of
the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR. The only aspect of the South Coast II
decision that affects this action is the vacatur of the provision in
the 2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to use an alternative baseline
year for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP). To address
this, in the 2018 SIP Update, CARB submitted an updated RFP
demonstration that relied
[[Page 57715]]
on a 2011 baseline year as required, along with updated motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated with the new RFP milestone
years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d
1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The term ``South Coast II'' is used in
reference to the 2018 court decision to distinguish it from a
decision published in 2006 also referred to as ``South Coast.'' The
earlier decision involved a challenge to the EPA's Phase 1
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone standard. South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
\4\ In a letter dated December 18, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, CARB requested withdrawal of the RFP demonstration
included in the 2016 AQMP submitted in April 2017. The RFP
demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update replaced the demonstration in
the 2016 AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements
contained in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, evaluated them for
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded
that they meet all applicable requirements, with the exception of the
attainment contingency measure element. More specifically, in our
proposal rule, we determined the following:
CARB and the District met all applicable procedural
requirements for public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and
submittal of the 2016 AQMP and 2018 SIP Update (see 85 FR 2953 from the
proposed rule);
The 2012 base year emissions inventory from the 2016 AQMP
\5\ is comprehensive, accurate, and current and thereby meets the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the future year baseline
projections reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest
planning assumptions and are properly supported by the SIP-approved
stationary and mobile source measures (see 85 FR 2953-2955 from the
proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The District provided the EPA with supplemental
documentation (``2016 AQMP Inventory Supplement'') for the 2012 and
2026 ozone season inventories relied on in the 2016 AQMP. See email
dated June 28, 2019, from Zorik Pirveysian, SCAQMD, to John
Ungvarsky, EPA, Subject: ``RE: Coachella Valley ozone inventory
clarification and update on possible contingency measures.'' The
2016 AQMP Inventory Supplement consists of two attachments to this
email, which provide the detailed 2012 and 2026 ozone season
inventories that were used for the summary in the 2016 AQMP. The
inventories were generated on November 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions statement element of the 2016 AQMP,
including District Rule 301 (specifically, paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and
(B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8)), meets the requirements for emissions
statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2955 from the proposed rule);
The process followed by the District to identify
reasonably available control measures (RACM) is generally consistent
with the EPA's recommendations; the District's rules and commitments
made to adopt certain additional measures provide for the
implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC); CARB
and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provide
for the implementation of RACM for mobile sources of NOX and
VOC; there are no additional RACM that would advance attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley by at least one year; and
therefore, the 2016 AQMP and 2016 State Strategy \6\ provide for the
implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2955-2959 from the
proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CARB's RACM assessment and their 2016 State Strategy
collectively contain CARB's evaluation of mobile source and other
statewide control measures that reduce emissions of NOX
and VOC in California, including the Coachella Valley. On October 1,
2019, the EPA approved the 2016 State Strategy (84 FR 52005).
Chapter 3 of 2016 State Strategy includes a commitment to take
action on new measures and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions
in the South Coast. Because the Coachella Valley's attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS is dependent on progress made in the upwind South
Coast, this commitment will contribute to attainment in the
Coachella Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The photochemical modeling in the 2016 AQMP shows that
existing CARB and District control measures, plus CARB and District
commitments to achieve additional emissions reductions in the South
Coast as described in the 2016 AQMP and 2016 State Strategy, are
sufficient to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
dates in the Coachella Valley; given the extensive documentation in the
2016 AQMP of modeling procedures and good model performance, the
modeling is adequate to support the attainment demonstrations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS; and therefore, the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP
meets the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108 (see 85 FR 2959-2963 from the proposed
rule);
As provided in our SRR, the previously-approved 15 percent
rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration for the Coachella Valley \7\ meets
the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for the Coachella Valley
for the 2008 ozone (see 85 FR 2963-2965 from the proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 82 FR 26854 (June 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update provides for
emissions reductions of VOC or NOX of at least 3 percent per
year on average for each three-year period from a 2011 baseline year
through the attainment year and thereby meets the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2963-2965 from
the proposed rule);
The 2016 AQMP (specifically, Chapter 7 and Appendix VI-E
(``VMT Offset Demonstration'')) demonstrates that CARB and SCAG have
adopted sufficient transportation control strategies to offset the
growth in emissions from growth in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) and
vehicle trips in the Coachella Valley, and thereby complies with the
VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2965-2968 from the proposed
rule); \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As discussed in section III.C.2.b and C.3 of the proposed
rule (see 85 FR 2957-2959), because of the significant influence of
pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin on ozone
conditions in the Coachella Valley, no transportation control
measures (TCMs) are reasonably available for implementation in the
Coachella Valley for the purposes of meeting the RACM requirement
and neither the District nor CARB relies on implementation of any
TCMs in the Coachella Valley to demonstrate implementation of RACM
in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP. Similarly, no TCMs are
included in the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the Coachella
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MVEBs for the 2020 and 2023 RFP milestone years and
the 2026 attainment year from the 2018 SIP Update are consistent with
the RFP and attainment demonstrations, are clearly identified and
precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 93.118(e), including the adequacy
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) (see 85 FR 2970-2971 from the
proposed rule); \9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In light of CARB's request to limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets in the 2018 SIP Update and in anticipation
of the EPA's approval, in the near term, of an updated version of
CARB's EMFAC (short for EMission FACtor) model for use in SIP
development and transportation conformity in California to include
updated vehicle mix and emissions data, we proposed to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets until replacement budgets
have been found adequate. See 85 FR 2971 from the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through previous EPA approvals of California's vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, the 1994 ``Opt-Out Program''
SIP revision, the 1993 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station SIP
revision, and the 2016 annual monitoring network plan for the South
Coast and Coachella Valley, the 2016 AQMP adequately addresses the 2008
ozone NAAQS; the enhanced I/M requirements in CAA section 182(c)(3) and
40 CFR 51.1102; the clean fuels fleet program in CAA sections 182(c)(4)
and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102; and the enhanced ambient air monitoring
requirements in CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102
[[Page 57716]]
(see 85 FR 2971-2973 from the proposed rule).
With respect to the RFP contingency measure element of the 2016
Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, we proposed to conditionally approve the
element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on commitments by CARB and
the District to supplement the element through submission of a SIP
revision within one year of final conditional approval action that will
include a revised or new District rule or rules. In the proposed rule,
we did not propose action on the attainment contingency measure. See 85
FR 2968-2970 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 approval or conditional approval of the above-listed
elements of the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on January
17, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on February 18, 2020. During this period, the EPA received one
comment letter submitted by a private individual and one comment letter
submitted by Air Law for All on behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health (collectively
referred to herein as ``CBD'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's proposed rule for this action (85 FR 2949) noted
that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the EPA issued a
notice of final rulemaking on September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51310) that
withdrew the EPA's waiver of preemption of CARB's zero-emission
vehicle sales mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. The EPA
also noted that if the federal fuel economy and GHG standards were
finalized prior to our final rulemaking on the 2016 Coachella Valley
Ozone SIP, we would evaluate and address, as appropriate, the impact
of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) rule on the proposed
rule (85 FR 2949, 2955). The EPA finalized SAFE on April 30, 2020
(85 FR 24174). The EPA did not receive any comments on the 2016
Coachella Valley Ozone SIP proposed rule regarding the impact of
SAFE. The EPA believes that any potential adverse ozone impacts
arising from SAFE, within the context of this SIP action, are
inconsequential for reasons similar to those described in the EPA's
June 2020 ``Response to Comments Document for the EPA's Final Action
on the San Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS'' (``Response to Comments Document'')
associated with the EPA's final rule, ``Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements, San Joaquin
Valley, California,'' 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). See Response 4 on
page 56 in the Response to Comments Document included in the docket
for today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #1: The private individual expresses overall support for
the proposed action. The commenter has experienced and witnessed the
effects of air pollution in the Coachella Valley and describes
incidences of asthma and breathing problems in the area. The commenter
states that the measures established in the proposed rule allow for a
better understanding and stronger analysis of the factors that affect
air quality in the Coachella Valley, and cites examples of the health
and environmental benefits of reduced air pollution. The commenter
supports the proposed rule because it will help address those factors.
The commenter also suggests that a localized analysis of air quality in
desert cities in the Coachella Valley would be appreciated, and
questions whether there is a study available regarding gas absorption
by the Salton Sea and whether pollutants might be emanating from the
Salton Sea.
Response to Comment #1: The EPA thanks the commenter for their
support for the proposed action. We agree with the commenter that this
rule will lead to air quality improvements in the Coachella Valley.
Regarding the commenter's suggestion for a localized analysis of air
quality in desert cities of the Coachella Valley, we direct the
commenter's attention to the District's ``Annual Air Quality Monitoring
Network Plan,'' which contains additional information and analysis on
the District's monitoring sites and instrumentation, including in the
Coachella Valley.\11\ This analysis reflects the federal monitoring
requirements for ambient ozone,\12\ which are based on populations and
monitored ozone concentrations for a Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). The Coachella Valley is located within the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario, CA (``RSBO'') MSA. Based on population and
monitored ozone concentrations in the RSBO MSA, a minimum of three
ozone monitoring sites are required.\13\ The SCAQMD operates 13
monitoring sites in the RSBO MSA, including the Palm Springs and Indio
monitors located near significant population centers in the Coachella
Valley. The Palm Springs and Indio ozone monitoring sites are
``neighborhood scale'' sites that characterize concentrations within a
few kilometers, which is an appropriate spatial scale for identifying
maximum ozone concentrations for the Coachella Valley.\14\ In addition,
the SCAQMD is required to submit to the EPA a network assessment every
5 years that includes a determination of whether the network meets
monitoring objectives, such as compliance with ambient air quality
standards and providing air pollution data to the public in a timely
manner, and whether any new sites are needed to meet these
objectives.\15\ This regular evaluation ensures that the existing
SCAQMD ozone monitoring network provides an adequate measure of ozone
air quality in the Coachella Valley, including desert cities in the
area, to serve as the basis for the control strategy and other planning
elements of the Coachella Valley Ozone SIP. Localized analysis of other
potential pollutants is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ SCAQMD, Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, July 1,
2019 (``Monitoring Network Plan''). This is the most recent version
reviewed by the EPA. The District recently prepared a 2020 update to
this plan, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-network-plan/annual-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan-v2.pdf.
\12\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1.
\13\ Monitoring Network Plan, 26.
\14\ Monitoring Network Plan, Appendix B.
\15\ 40 CFR 58.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comments pertaining to the Salton Sea, we note that
efforts are ongoing to study and address the anticipated dust impacts
associated with greater exposure of playa as the Salton Sea shoreline
recedes. For example, the Salton Sea Task Force established in 2015 has
developed a 10-year plan that endeavors to expedite wildlife habitat
construction and to suppress dust from playa that will be exposed in
the future. In 2013, the District established a new monitoring station
in the community of Mecca, closer to the Salton Sea in the southeastern
portion of the Coachella Valley. It is measuring coarse particulate
matter continuously, as well as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a
gas that smells like rotten eggs and is associated with natural
processes occurring in the Salton Sea. An additional monitoring station
measuring only H2S was also established in 2013 near the
shore of the Salton Sea. However, concerns and efforts regarding
H2S are not germane to the EPA's Coachella Valley proposed
action relating to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. H2S is not a
contributor to ambient ozone formation, and thus, not addressed in our
proposed action on the 2016 Coachella Valley ozone SIP. The SCAQMD has
issued odor advisories for the Coachella Valley due to elevated levels
of H2S. Health information on H2S is available
from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).\16\
Additionally, the SCAQMD maintains a website with current
H2S monitored values in the Salton Sea area
[[Page 57717]]
where visitors can sign up for H2S alerts.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See ATSDR, ``ToxGuide\TM\ for Hydrogen Sulfide
H2S,'' December 2016, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-114.pdf.
\17\ https://saltonseaodor.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #2: CBD comments that the submittal fails to show that the
substitute NOX emissions reductions will ``result in a
reduction of ozone concentrations at least equivalent'' to the required
3 percent per annum VOC emissions reductions, and 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
NOX in ozone formation, including the existence of an
``optimum'' VOC to NOX ratio for a given level of VOC (i.e.,
a NOX concentration at which the maximum amount of ozone is
produced). As explained by the commenter, in a ``NOX
saturated'' situation where NOX levels exceed this optimum
ratio, a reduction in NOX levels can lead to increases in
ozone levels and in a ``NOX limited'' situation with
NOX 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
NOX reductions may not decrease ozone concentrations.
The commenter also points to the EPA's consideration of the
relative effectiveness of NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX emission
reductions result in equivalent ozone reductions. In a footnote, the
commenter acknowledges that the submittal includes photochemical grid
modeling for the attainment demonstration, but asserts that the results
of this modeling ``do not rationally relate'' to the required
demonstration for section 182(c)(2)(C), citing arguments that the
attainment demonstration modeling addresses only a single data point
rather than multiple scenarios, and that the underlying control
strategy reflects other factors such as politics.
Response to comment #2: We disagree with the commenter's
characterization of the District's submittal and the EPA's proposed
approval. As described below, we find that the analysis included with
the modeling and control strategy in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone
SIP and 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP adequately demonstrates that annual
and cumulative NOX reductions in the South Coast and
Coachella Valley will result in a reduction in ozone concentrations
that is at least equivalent to the ozone reductions that would be
achieved by VOC emission reductions alone. We therefore agree with the
District's use of NOX substitution in the RFP demonstration
for the Coachella Valley.
In general, we agree with the commenter's descriptions of (1) the
relative roles of VOC and NOX in ozone formation; (2) the
potential to calculate an ``optimum'' VOC to NOX ratio for a
given level of VOC; and (3) geographic differences in the ozone
response to precursor control, depending on whether an area is
``NOX saturated'' or ``NOX limited.'' We also
agree with the commenter that Congress was aware of these issues and
provided for the EPA to address them under provisions of the CAA. We
find that the District's submittal adequately accounts for these
issues, and that the District's control strategy and use of
NOX substitution is consistent with the needs of the
Coachella Valley.
The modeling and control strategy included in the 2016 Coachella
Valley Ozone SIP and 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP demonstrate that
significant NOX reductions are needed for these areas to
attain the 2008 ozone standards in 2026 and 2031, respectively. During
development of the 2016 AQMP, the District evaluated the relative role
of VOC and NOX reductions at 24 monitoring stations
throughout the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas,
with each station representing the region surrounding the station site.
The District ran a set of simulations with incremental VOC and
NOX emissions reductions. This information is presented in
graphs, called ozone isopleths, of ozone levels resulting from various
levels of emission reductions for each monitoring station.\18\ Each
ozone isopleth provides a visual reference to evaluate hypothetical
scenarios for reducing VOC and NOX emissions in sufficient
amounts to reach attainment by showing the relative change in ozone
concentration that would result from reductions in VOC and
NOX.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachments 4 (2031 8-Hour Ozone
Isopleths) and Attachment 5 (2023 8-Hour Ozone Isopleths). Isopleths
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are included as Attachment 6 (22 1-Hour
Ozone Isopleths).
\19\ Contrary to the commenter's characterization of the
District's modeling as representing only a single data point, these
isopleths represent the results of the photochemical modeling of
multiple scenarios across a range of VOC and NOX emission
reduction levels, and allow for a comparison of the relative
effectiveness of reducing one precursor or the other, or both, in
greater or lesser quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These isopleths illustrate that a NOX-limited scenario
persists throughout both areas, indicating that NOX
reductions will be generally more effective than VOC reductions in
reducing ozone concentrations. 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 NOX than reductions in VOC across a wide range
of VOC emissions quantities.\20\ These graphs represent ozone
concentrations at various levels of VOC emissions (shown on the
horizontal x-axis) and NOX emissions (shown on the vertical
y-axis). The graphs show that when NOX 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 graph
indicates that reductions in NOX 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 4 at 9 and 16; Attachment
5 at 10 and 17.
\21\ In the South Coast air basin, the Fontana-Arrow Highway
site (``Fontana site'') has the highest ozone design value and is a
key site used in the modeling of attainment. The Fontana site
isopleths for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards demonstrate that
relying on VOC reductions alone would not reduce ozone levels as
quickly as a strategy aimed at NOX reductions. The
isopleths for the Fontana site show a similar pattern to those for
the two Coachella Valley monitoring sites. Id.; 2016 AQMP, Appendix
V, Attachment 4 at 7; Attachment 5 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the modeling and evaluation of attainment strategy
options, the District determined that the most effective strategy in
the South Coast for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards would be to
reduce NOX emissions at a greater rate than VOC emissions,
equal to roughly two tons of NOX for every ton of VOC.\22\
Specifically, the District determined that an additional 65.3 tons
[[Page 57718]]
per day (tpd) of VOC and 116.6 tpd of NOX beyond projected
2023 baseline emissions would be needed to attain the 1997 ozone
standards, and that an additional 71.0 tpd of VOC and 118.7 tpd of
NOX beyond projected 2031 baseline emissions would be needed
to attain the 2008 ozone standards. Accordingly, the District's control
strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the South Coast and Coachella
Valley areas relies on reductions of both pollutants, while
prioritizing NOX reductions.\23\ The EPA agrees with this
approach, based on the District's modeling and the isopleths included
in the 2016 AQMP, and the accompanying analysis included in the
submittal. Similarly, we find that this modeling and analysis
adequately demonstrates that the NOX emissions reductions in
the District's RFP demonstration will result in a reduction in ozone
concentrations that is at least equivalent to what would result from an
equal percentage of VOC emission reductions, based on the
NOX-limited condition in the area and the relative
effectiveness of reductions of each pollutant in reducing ozone
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Draft CEPA Source Level Emissions
Reduction Summary, 2031 8-hour Ozone Attainment Scenario and 2023 8-
hour Ozone Attainment Scenario, 1-8.
\23\ See, e.g., 2016 AQMP at ES-8 (``In order to meet ozone
standards, both NOX and [VOC] emissions need to be
addressed. However, air quality modeling demonstrates that
NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in
reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement
in PM2.5 concentrations.''); 7-27 (``As mentioned a
number of times in this chapter, poor ozone air quality in the
Coachella Valley is primarily due to transport of ozone and its
precursors from the upwind source region of the Basin and attainment
in Coachella Valley is only possible with substantial emission
reductions in the Basin. With this in mind, the proposed control
strategy consists of two components: (1) An aggressive control
strategy for NOX emission sources in the Basin; and (2)
control of locally generated emissions via proposed state-wide or
nationally-applied control measures implemented by state and federal
actions.''). In contrast, for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard,
the District determined that VOC reductions would be as effective as
NOX reductions. See 2016 AQMP at 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that section
182(c)(2)(C) would require the District to provide additional
photochemical grid modeling to demonstrate that the substituted
NOX reductions are at least as effective as the VOC
reductions that would otherwise be required under 182(c)(2)(B).
Further, we believe that the commenter's comparison to the EPA's
requirements and recommendations for interpollutant trading and
exemption from NOX requirements under CAA 182(f)
misunderstands the purpose of and requirements for NOX
substitution under CAA 182(c)(2)(B) relative to these other examples.
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.\24\ 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 NOX 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 NOX emissions, no additional
modeling or demonstration is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See EPA, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of
Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f)'' (Dec. 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 (NOX) 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 addressed above, we find that the District has
provided ample evidence to demonstrate that NOX reductions
will be more effective at reducing ozone concentrations in the South
Coast and Coachella Valley. In this context, we find 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 NOX substitution.
Comment #3: CBD says that the EPA fails to give notice of how the
submittal addresses the demonstration required under CAA 182(c)(2)(C)
and thus the EPA's proposal is not in accordance with procedure
required by law. In particular, the commenter says that EPA has failed
to give adequate notice of its proposed interpretation of section
182(c)(2)(C).
The commenter observes that Table 5 of the proposed rule treats a
percentage of NOX reductions as equivalent to an equal
percentage of VOC reductions, but says that the proposed rule does not
explain why a percentage reduction in NOX emissions results
in equivalent ozone reductions to an equal reduction in VOC emissions,
as required by section 182(c)(2)(C). The commenter suggests that the
proposed rule may have used the procedure recommended in a December
1993 guidance document from the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards entitled ``NOX Substitution Guidance,'' but
notes that the NOX Substitution Guidance is not cited in the
notice and is not listed in the docket index. The commenter argues that
because the NOX Substitution Guidance is non-binding, the
notice must indicate whether the EPA intends to adopt the Guidance's
interpretation of the CAA, and that if the EPA instead believes that
the Coachella Valley calculation is a legitimate demonstration for
other reasons, it must re-propose the action.
Response to Comment #3: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that
the proposed rulemaking fails to give adequate notice regarding our
proposed approval of the District's use of NOX substitution,
or that we would be required to re-propose with additional
justification prior to taking final action on this portion of the
proposal. As described in Response #1 above, the modeling and analysis
submitted to support the District's control strategy and attainment and
RFP demonstrations highlight the need for significant NOX
reductions in the Coachella Valley and South Coast Basin for the
Coachella Valley to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and demonstrate that
these NOX reductions will be more effective on a percentage
basis than VOC reductions at reducing ozone concentrations in the
nonattainment area. As described below, our proposal includes a summary
and analysis of all relevant portions of the District's submittal,
including NOX substitution in the RFP demonstration.
Section III.E of the proposed rulemaking describes our proposed
approval of the District's RFP demonstration.\25\ This section
describes the statutory and regulatory requirements for an RFP
demonstration, including the option under CAA 182(c)(2)(C) to
substitute NOX emissions reductions for VOC reductions, and
the reasons for the EPA's approval of this demonstration. The
discussion includes citations to CAA 182(c)(2)(C) and the implementing
regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as relevant portions of
the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SRR that address the applicable
requirements.\26\ The proposal explains that the District's RFP
demonstration
[[Page 57719]]
substitutes NOX reductions for VOC reductions beginning in
milestone year 2020, and the RFP demonstration, including the
District's substitution of NOX reductions for VOC reductions
on a percentage basis, is summarized in Table 5.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 85 FR 2949, 2963-2965.
\26\ Id. at 2964 (see footnotes 98 and 103).
\27\ Id. at 2964-2965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the commenter notes, the proposed rulemaking does not include a
specific justification in support of the District's use of
NOX substitution on a percentage basis. However, the
discussion and analysis are consistent with and supportive of this
approach. For example, the discussion of the District's control
strategy in section III.D.2.b of the proposed rulemaking explains that
already-adopted measures are expected to achieve approximately 66
percent of the NOX reductions needed from the 2012 base year
for the South Coast to attain the NAAQS in 2023, and tables 2, 3, and 4
show the remaining additional NOX reductions needed to show
continued progress and attainment in the Coachella Valley. The
discussion and tables in this section document the need for additional
NOX reductions far exceeding the necessary additional VOC
reductions, and show that ongoing NOX reductions are linked
with the downward trend in ozone concentrations leading to attainment,
consistent with the District's control strategy. As addressed above,
given this need for NOX reductions and the modeled
anticipated impact on the Coachella Valley, substituting NOX
for VOC on a percentage-reduction basis represents a conservative
approach that will result in considerably lower ozone concentrations
than would result through the VOC reductions required under CAA
182(c)(2)(B).
As the commenter notes, this approach is consistent with the
procedures outlined in the EPA's 1993 NOX Substitution
Guidance. However, as the commenter notes, the NOX
Substitution Guidance is non-binding, and the EPA must ensure that any
use of NOX substitution is reasonable in light of local
conditions and needs.\28\ In this case, our approval is supported by
the NOX-limited conditions in the area and the need for
NOX reductions as set out in the District's control
strategy. For this reason, we find that the proposed rulemaking and
associated supporting documents included in the docket for that action
provide sufficient documentation that the NOX substitution
used in the District's RFP demonstration is consistent with CAA section
182(c)(2)(C), and we disagree that the EPA would be required to re-
propose with additional analysis or justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See NOX Substitution Guidance at 3 (noting that
the EPA approves substitution proposals on a case-by-case basis,
including any reasonable substitution proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #4: CBD provides numerous comments directed at the EPA's
NOX Substitution Guidance, contending that if the EPA
intended to adopt the positions set forth in the NOX
Substitution Guidance, the proposal would be arbitrary and capricious
and contrary to law because of problems with the NOX
Substitution Guidance. These comments assert generally that the
NOX Substitution Guidance contradicts CAA 182(c)(2)(C) by
recommending a procedure that fails to demonstrate any equivalence
between VOC and NOX reductions, relies on incorrect policy
assumptions, and gives legal justifications that are without merit.
Response to Comment #4: Comments relating solely to the
NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this
rulemaking action. As noted in our response to Comment #3 above, our
approval of the District's use of NOX substitution is
supported by local conditions and needs as documented in the modeling
and analysis included in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, and is
consistent with the requirements in CAA 182(c)(2)(C).
Comment #5: CBD challenges the EPA's proposed conditional approval
of RFP contingency measures as arbitrary and capricious, and contrary
to law based on CAA requirements and interpreting case law. The
commenter also argues that the District's commitment does not qualify
for conditional approval.
Response to Comment #5: Because the EPA is not finalizing our
proposed conditional approval of the District's RFP contingency
measures at this time, comments on this issue are outside the scope of
this action and we are not providing specific responses to these
comments.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rule and
summarized herein, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final
action to approve as a revision to the California SIP the following
portions of the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan submitted by
CARB on April 27, 2017, and the 2018 SIP Update submitted on December
5, 2018, that compose the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP.
Base year emissions inventory element in the 2016 AQMP as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
RACM demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS;
Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
ROP demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the
requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS;
RFP demonstration element in the 2018 SIP Update as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and
182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the 2016
AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018 SIP Update for
the 2020 and 2023 RFP milestone years and the 2026 attainment year, as
shown below, because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS finalized for approval herein
and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e);
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the South
Coast
[Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................... 3.7 8.4
2023.................................... 3.3 4.6
2026.................................... 3.0 4.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57720]]
Enhanced vehicle I/M program element in the 2016 AQMP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Clean fuels fleet program element in the 2016 AQMP as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 and 40
CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; and
Enhanced monitoring element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in the Coachella Valley, the EPA has previously approved SIP
revisions that address the nonattainment area requirements for new
source review (NSR) and for implementation of reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for the South Coast, including the
Coachella Valley, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 64026
(December 13, 2018) (for NSR) and 82 FR 43850 (September 20, 2017)
(for RACT). SIP revisions for the Coachella Valley addressing the
penalty fee requirements under CAA sections 181(b)(4) and 185 are
not yet due for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the MVEBs, we are taking final action to limit the
duration of the approval of the MVEBs to last only until the effective
date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets. We are doing so at CARB's request and in light of the benefits
of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets \30\ prior to our taking final
action on the future SIP revision that includes the updated budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are taking final action to determine that paragraphs (e)(1)(A)
and (B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8) of District Rule 301 (``Permitting
and Associated Fees''), submitted to the EPA on August 5, 2019, and
approved on October 1, 2019, at 84 FR 52005, meet the emission
statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Lastly, we are deferring final action on the contingency measures
element of the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP and
attainment contingency measures.
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 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 November 16, 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
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 25, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(514)(ii)(A)(7)
and (c)(517)(ii)(B)(6) to read as follows:
[[Page 57721]]
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(514) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(7) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,
adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter VII (``SIP Elements for the
Coachella Valley''), excluding section VII.D (``Contingency
Measures''); and pages A-23 through A-26 of appendix A (``Nonattainment
Area Inventories'').
* * * * *
(517) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(6) Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017), Chapter 7
(``Current and Future Air Quality--Desert Nonattainment Areas''),
adopted on March 3, 2017, excluding the portions of pages 7-13 to 7-22
regarding particulate matter and other criteria pollutants, and
excluding the portions of pages 7-26 to 7-30 regarding reasonable
further progress.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.244 Motor vehicle emissions budgets.
(a) * * *
(11) Coachella Valley, approved October 16, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-19162 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P