[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77774-77782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27511]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0681; FRL-10386-01-R9]


Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Vehicle Miles 
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstrations for the 2015 Ozone Standards; 
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the California state implementation plan (SIP) 
concerning vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstrations for the 
Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Riverside County 
(Coachella Valley), Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave 
Desert), and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas (NAAs) for the 2015 
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is 
proposing to approve these revisions because they demonstrate that 
California has added or implemented specific enforceable transportation 
control strategies and transportation control measures to offset the 
growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips. We are 
proposing to approve these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``the Act''), which establishes VMT offset demonstration requirements 
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme.''

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before January 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0681 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary

[[Page 77775]]

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 
947-4279 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary and Analysis of the State's Submittals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ In accordance with section 
107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area ``nonattainment'' if 
it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of 
the NAAQS in a nearby area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 4, 2018, the EPA designated 21 areas in California as 
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The designations became 
effective on August 3, 2018.\2\ In its June 4, 2018 action, the EPA 
also classified the 21 nonattainment areas in California, including the 
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley NAAs as Extreme nonattainment and 
the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert NAAs as Severe 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within two years of designations, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA 
and 40 CFR 51.1302 require a state with an ozone NAA classified as 
Severe or Extreme for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to submit a revision to the 
SIP that addresses the VMT offset demonstration requirement in the 
Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements. 
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt 
transportation control strategies and measures to offset growth in 
emissions from growth in VMT, and, as necessary, in combination with 
other emissions reduction requirements, to demonstrate reasonable 
further progress and attainment. For more information on the EPA's 
interpretation of the three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), see 77 
FR 58067, 58068 (September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal of 
approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations). In 
this action, we are only addressing the first element of CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A), i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
submitted a staff report titled ``70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal'' (``July 
2020 submittal'') to the EPA.\4\ In part, the July 2020 submittal 
contains the VMT offset demonstrations for the South Coast, Coachella 
Valley, and San Joaquin Valley NAAs.\5\ On December 28, 2020, CARB 
submitted to the EPA a staff report titled ``West Mojave Desert VMT 
Offset Demonstration'' (``December 2020 submittal'') for the West 
Mojave Desert NAA.\6\ In this action, we are evaluating and proposing 
action on portions of the July 2020 submittal that address the South 
Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin Valley VMT offset 
demonstrations and the December 2020 submittal of the West Mojave 
Desert VMT offset demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter dated July 24, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive 
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
IX (submitted electronically July 27, 2020).
    \5\ The July 2020 submittal also addresses base year emissions 
inventory requirements for 18 of the 21 NAAs in California. The EPA 
approved the July 2020 submittal as meeting the base year emissions 
inventory requirements for the 18 areas addressed in the submittal 
on September 29, 2022 (87 FR 59015).
    \6\ Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region IX (submitted electronically December 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In California, CARB is the agency responsible for the adoption and 
submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP revisions, and it has 
broad authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements 
for mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts 
in California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources 
and are generally responsible for the development of regional air 
quality plans. The South Coast Air Quality Management District develops 
and adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning 
requirements applicable in the South Coast and Coachella Valley NAAs. 
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District develops and 
adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning 
requirements applicable in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. The Antelope 
Valley Air Quality Management District and the Mojave Desert Air 
Quality Management District collectively develop and adopt air quality 
management plans to address CAA planning requirements applicable in the 
West Mojave Desert. Such plans are then submitted to CARB for adoption 
and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.

A. The South Coast Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The South Coast nonattainment area consists of Orange County, the 
southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, a portion of 
southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County. The 
South Coast nonattainment area encompasses an area of approximately 
6,600 square miles and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and 
the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north 
and east.\7\ The projected 2018 and 2030 populations of the South Coast 
NAA are over 16 million and 18 million people, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the South 
Coast 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \8\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, ``2022 Draft 
Air Quality Management Plan,'' Chapter 7, 7-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Coachella Valley 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The Coachella Valley NAA is located within Riverside County, and 
its boundaries generally align with the Riverside County portion of the 
Salton Sea Air Basin.\9\ The projected 2018 and 2030 populations of the 
Coachella Valley NAA are 471,012 and 568,622, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the Coachella 
Valley 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \10\ 2022 Draft Air Quality Management Plan, Chapter 7, 7-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The San Joaquin Valley NAA consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western 
portion of Kern County. The San Joaquin Valley NAA stretches over 250 
miles from north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and 
encompasses over 23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the 
Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, 
and the Sierra Nevada range to the east.\11\ The population of the San 
Joaquin Valley in 2015 was estimated to be nearly 4.2 million people, 
and it is

[[Page 77776]]

projected to increase to over 5.2 million people in 2030.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \12\ The population estimates and projections include all of 
Kern County, not just the portion of Kern County within the 
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 
Control District, ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone 
Standard,'' Adopted June 16, 2016, Chapter 1, Table 1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The West Mojave Desert Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The West Mojave Desert NAA consists of northeast Los Angeles County 
and portions of southwest and central San Bernardino County.\13\ The 
population of the West Mojave Desert NAA was estimated at 868,380 in 
2010.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the West 
Mojave Desert 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \14\ 8-Hour Ozone (2008) Designated Area/State Information, 
Green Book, EPA, accessed on November 19, 2020, Population Data from 
2010, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hbtc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary and Analysis of the State's Submittals

A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 require states 
to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for a public hearing 
prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the 
EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of 
receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be 
complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of 
submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not 
approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the 
submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to 
act on the SIP submittal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CAA section 110(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the State's Submittals

    The July 2020 submittal documents the public review process 
followed prior to submittal to the EPA of the South Coast, Coachella 
Valley, and San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demonstrations as revisions 
to the SIP. In addition to the VMT offset demonstrations, the July 2020 
submittal includes a copy of CARB's notice for a public meeting on June 
25, 2020,\16\ a transcript from the June 25, 2020 meeting,\17\ a signed 
resolution stating that CARB provided at least 30 days for public 
review prior to the board hearing and that the VMT offset 
demonstrations were adopted after adequate notice and public 
hearing,\18\ and a compilation of comments received by CARB prior to 
and during the June 25, 2020 public meeting.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 70 Parts Per Billion 
Ozone State Implementation Plan Submittal,'' California Air 
Resources Board, May 22, 2020.
    \17\ ``Videoconference Meeting, State of California, Air 
Resources Board, CALEPA Headquarters, Byron Sher Auditorium, Second 
Floor, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California,'' J&K Court Reporting, 
LLC, June 25, 2020.
    \18\ ``70 Parts Per Billion Ozone State Implementation Plan 
Submittal,'' Resolution 20-17, CARB, June 25, 2020.
    \19\ Compilation of comments received for 70 Parts Per Billion 
Ozone State Implementation Plan Submittal. CARB indicated in its 
July 24, 2020 transmittal letter to the EPA that CARB has considered 
all comments and has determined all are non-substantive and do not 
pertain to the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 2020 submittal documents the public review process 
followed prior to the submittal to the EPA of the West Mojave Desert 
VMT offset demonstration as a revision to the SIP. In addition to the 
West Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration, the December 2020 
submittal includes a copy of CARB's notice for a public meeting on 
October 22, 2020,\20\ a signed resolution stating that CARB provided at 
least 30 days for public review prior to the board hearing and the West 
Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration was adopted after adequate 
notice and public hearing,\21\ and a comment received by CARB prior to 
the October 22, 2020 public meeting.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the West Mojave 
Desert VMT Offset Demonstration,'' California Air Resources Board, 
September 18, 2020.
    \21\ ``West Mojave Desert Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset 
Demonstration,'' Resolution 20-27, California Air Resources Board, 
October 22, 2020.
    \22\ CARB determined the comment to be non-substantive and did 
not pertain to the Board's action on the item. No comments were 
received during the Board meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Stationary and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires a state to submit, for 
each ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe or above, a SIP 
revision that ``identifies and adopts specific enforceable 
transportation control strategies and transportation control measures 
to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled 
or number of vehicle trips in such area.'' Herein, we refer to the 
related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset requirement.'' In 
addition, we refer to the SIP revision intended to demonstrate 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement as the ``VMT 
emissions offset demonstration.''
    In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit 
ruled that additional transportation control measures are required 
whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would 
have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions 
are actually decreasing.\23\ In response to the court's decision, in 
August 2012, the EPA issued a memorandum titled ``Implementing Clean 
Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and 
Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to 
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled'' (``August 2012 Guidance'').\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d. 
584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 
2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (``Association 
of Irritated Residents'').
    \24\ Memorandum dated August 30, 2012, Karl Simon, Director, 
Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and 
Air Quality, to Carl Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and 
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 
Division, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of ``transportation 
control strategies'' (TCS) and ``transportation control measures'' 
(TCM) and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the 
calculations made for the purpose of determining the degree to which 
any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be 
offset. Generally, TCS is a broad term that encompasses many types of 
controls (including, for example, motor vehicle emissions limitations, 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative fuel programs, 
other technology-based measures, and TCMs) that would fit within the 
regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' \25\ A TCM is defined at 
40 CFR 51.100(r) as ``any measure that is directed toward reducing 
emissions of air pollutants from transportation sources,'' including, 
but not limited to, those listed in section 108(f) of the CAA. TCMs 
generally refer to programs intended to reduce VMT, number of vehicle 
trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved public 
transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and high-
occupancy vehicles, and trip reduction ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 Guidance explains how states may demonstrate that 
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with 
the Court's ruling in Association of Irritated Residents. Under the 
August 2012 Guidance, states are recommended to develop one emissions 
inventory for the base year and three different emissions inventory 
scenarios for the attainment year. For the attainment year, the state 
would present three emissions estimates, two of which would represent

[[Page 77777]]

hypothetical emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to 
identify the ``growth in emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, 
and one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions 
after fully accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting 
emissions reductions obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the 
August 2012 Guidance for specific details on how states might conduct 
the calculations.
    The base year on-road volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
should be calculated using VMT in that year, and they should reflect 
all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in the base year. This would 
include vehicle emissions standards, state and local control programs, 
such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any additional implemented TCSs 
and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of 
that base year.
    The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year is 
based on the projected VMT and trips for that year and assume that no 
new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year 
inventory have been added or implemented since the base year. This 
calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if 
no new TCSs or TCMs were added or implemented, and VMT and trips were 
allowed to grow at the projected rate from the base year. This estimate 
shows the potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth 
in VMT and trips, representing a ``no action'' scenario. Attainment 
year emissions in this scenario may be lower than those in the base 
year due to the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually 
being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided that VMT and/
or numbers of vehicle trips would in fact increase by the attainment 
year, emissions would still likely be higher than they would have been 
assuming VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations assumes 
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been added 
or implemented since the base year, but it also assumes no growth in 
VMT and trips between the base year and attainment year. This estimate 
reflects the hypothetical emissions level that would have occurred if 
no further TCMs or TCSs had been added or implemented and if VMT and 
trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like the ``no 
action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions in the 
attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to the 
fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually being replaced by 
cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this case, they would 
not be influenced by any growth in VMT or trips. This emissions 
estimate reflects a ceiling on the attainment emissions that should be 
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the court in 
Association of Irritated Residents because it shows what would happen 
under a scenario in which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been 
added or implemented, and VMT and trips are held constant during the 
period from the area's base year to its attainment year. This 
represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. These two hypothetical 
status quo estimates are necessary to identify the target level of 
emissions from which states would determine whether further TCMs or 
TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and implemented in reality, 
would need to be adopted and implemented in order to fully offset any 
increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips identified in the 
``no action'' scenario.
    Finally, the third attainment year emissions estimate represents 
the emissions that are actually expected to occur in the area's 
attainment year after taking into account reductions from all 
enforceable TCSs and TCMs. This estimate is based on the VMT and trip 
levels expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT and trip 
levels from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs expected 
to be in place and for which the SIP will take credit in the area's 
attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs added or implemented since 
the base year. This represents the ``projected actual'' attainment year 
scenario. If this emissions estimate is less than or equal to the 
emissions ceiling that was established in the second of the attainment 
year calculations, the TCSs and TCMs for the attainment year would be 
sufficient to fully offset the identified hypothetical growth in 
emissions.
    If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year 
emissions are still greater than the ceiling that was established in 
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after 
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need 
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 
growth in emissions. The additional TCSs or TCMs would need to bring 
the actual emissions down to at least the VMT offset ceiling estimated 
in the second of the attainment year calculations, to meet the VMT 
offset requirement of section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Court.
2. Summary of State's Submission
    CARB prepared the VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the South 
Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave Desert for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and they are documented in the July 2020 and 
December 2020 submittals. In addition to the VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations, the submittals include attachments listing TCSs adopted 
by CARB since 1990,\26\ TCMs developed by the Southern California 
Association of Governments (SCAG),\27\ the metropolitan planning 
organization (MPO) for the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and West 
Mojave Desert NAAs,\28\ and TCMs developed by the eight MPOs \29\ in 
the San Joaquin Valley NAA.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See attachments B-1 in the July 2020 submittal and A-1 in 
the December 2020 submittal.
    \27\ SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization for the 
South Coast NAA and surrounding areas. The SCAG region also includes 
the West Mojave Desert NAA and encompasses six counties (Imperial, 
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 
cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles.
    \28\ See attachments B-2 in the July 2020 submittal and A-2 in 
the December 2020 submittal.
    \29\ The following eight MPOs represent the eight counties in 
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council 
of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced 
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation 
Commission, The Council of Fresno County Governments, The Kings 
County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of 
Governments, and the Kern Council of Governments.
    \30\ See attachment B-2 in the July 2020 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the VMT emissions offset demonstrations, CARB used EMFAC2017, 
the latest EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions model for California 
available at the time the four VMT offset demonstrations were 
developed.\31\ The EMFAC2017 model estimates the on-road emissions from 
two combustion processes (i.e., running exhaust and start exhaust) and 
four evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal 
losses, and resting losses). The EMFAC2017 model combines trip-based 
VMT data from the regional transportation planning agency (e.g., SCAG), 
vehicle start data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle 
population data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These 
sets of data are combined with corresponding emissions rates to 
calculate emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the 
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for 
use by State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. See 84 
FR 41717 (August 15, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and 
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is

[[Page 77778]]

driven. Emissions from these processes are thus directly related to VMT 
and vehicle trips, and CARB included these emissions in the 
calculations that provide the basis for four VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations addressed in this proposed action. CARB did not include 
emissions from resting loss and diurnal loss processes in the analysis 
because such emissions are related to vehicle population, not to VMT or 
vehicle trips, and thus are not part of ``any growth in emissions from 
growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such 
area'' under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
    The VMT emissions offset demonstrations in the July 2020 and 
December 2020 submittals use a 2017 base year. The base year for VMT 
emissions offset demonstration purposes should generally be the same 
base year used for nonattainment planning purposes. On September 29, 
2022, the EPA approved the 2017 base year inventories for 18 ozone NAAs 
in California, including South Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin 
Valley, and West Mojave Desert, for the purposes of the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS, and thus, CARB's selection of 2017 is appropriate as the base 
year for the VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS in the July 2020 and December 2020 submittals.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 87 FR 59015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VMT emissions offset demonstrations also include the three 
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset 
ceiling, and projected actual) described in section II.B.1 of this 
notice. On July 5, 2022, CARB provided additional technical information 
in support of the attainment year inventories used to derive the three 
different attainment year scenarios in the VMT offset 
demonstrations.\33\ On August 16, 2020, CARB provided additional 
technical clarification regarding vehicle populations, VMT, and vehicle 
starts (i.e., trips) in the attainment scenarios. Because mileage 
accrual rates vary between gasoline and electric vehicles, the vehicle 
populations and starts vary among the attainment year scenarios. VMT 
accrual for gasoline vehicles is slightly higher than electric vehicles 
before model year (MY) 2025; because CARB anticipates that battery 
range will increase over time, CARB assumes that VMT accrual per year 
for electric vehicles will equal that of gasoline vehicles in MY 2025 
and later. Further, other factors such as spatial allocation and fuel 
matching characteristics of the EMFAC model influence the vehicle 
population estimates. Therefore, different populations of gasoline and 
electric vehicles (and, consequently, different total populations and 
numbers of starts) may correspond to the same VMT.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CARB further clarified the additional technical information 
in supplementary emails dated August 11 and 16, 2022, from Nesamani 
Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX) regarding VMT 
offset demonstrations.
    \34\ See email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur 
(CARB) and Karina O'Connor (EPA Region IX) to John Ungvarsky (EPA 
Region IX) regarding VMT offset demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the supporting technical information used to 
calculate the 2032 attainment year scenarios for Coachella Valley and 
West Mojave Desert Severe nonattainment areas and the 2037 attainment 
year scenarios for South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Extreme 
nonattainment areas. We reviewed the VMT, vehicle population, and 
vehicle trip data input to EMFAC2017 and compared modeled emissions 
reductions to the reductions expected from measures implemented after 
the base year. Based on our review, we propose to find the information 
to be adequate for use in the VMT offset demonstrations. We propose to 
find acceptable CARB's selection of year 2032 as the attainment year 
for the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert VMT emissions offset 
demonstrations and 2037 as the attainment year for the South Coast and 
San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS.
(a) South Coast
    Table 1 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each 
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions 
estimates in tons per day (tpd) for the South Coast VMT offset 
demonstration for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

     Table 1--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for South Coast for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   VMT  (1,000/   Starts  (1,000/ VOC  emissions
                            Scenario                                   day)            day)            (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................         395,571          48,172              75
No Action (2037); no new measures, with VMT growth..............         407,368          61,173              40
VMT Offset Ceiling (2037); no new measures, no VMT growth.......         395,571          59,997              36
Projected Actual (2037); new measures included, with VMT growth.         407,368          59,869              29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: July 2020 submittal, Tables 1 and 2, p. 25-26. Starts data provided in attachment (``South Coast VMT
  Offset--2019 FSTIP--February 27 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated July 5, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
  (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).

    For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the 
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As 
shown in Table 1, CARB estimates the South Coast VOC emissions at 75 
tpd in 2017.
    For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) added or implemented 
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran 
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2037 
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year. 
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in 
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional 
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 1, CARB estimates the no 
action South Coast VOC emissions at 40 tpd in 2037.
    For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model 
for the 2037 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding 
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model 
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year 
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle 
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects 
hypothetical VOC emissions in the South Coast if CARB had not added or 
implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there had been 
no

[[Page 77779]]

growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and the attainment 
year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips 
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions 
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based 
on the values in Table 1, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to 
growth in VMT and trips in the South Coast would have been 4 tpd (i.e., 
40 tpd minus 36 tpd). This hypothetical difference establishes the 
level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the 
combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any necessary 
additional TCSs and TCMs.
    For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the 
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at 
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB 
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented 
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the 
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of 
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list 
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final 
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018). 
Also see email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur 
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, the projected actual attainment year VOC 
emissions are 29 tpd. CARB compared this value against the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional 
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because 
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT 
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the 
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions 
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.
(b) Coachella Valley
    Table 2 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each 
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions 
estimates for the Coachella Valley VMT offset demonstration for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.

  Table 2--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the Coachella Valley NAA for the 2015 Ozone
                                                      NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   VMT  (1,000/   Starts  (1,000/ VOC  emissions
                            Scenario                                   day)            day)            (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................          13,479           1,751             3.1
No Action (2032); no new measures, with VMT growth..............          16,284           2,395             2.0
VMT Offset Ceiling (2032); no new measures, no VMT growth.......          13,479           2,023             1.6
Projected Actual (2032); new measures included, with VMT growth.          16,284           2,350             1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: July 2020 submittal, Tables 3 and 4, p. 28-29. Starts data provided in attachment (``Coachella VMT
  Offset--2019 FSTIP--April 2 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated August 11, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB)
  to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).

    For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the 
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As 
shown in Table 2, CARB estimates the Coachella Valley VOC emissions at 
3.1 tpd in 2017.
    For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) added or implemented 
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran 
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2032 
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year. 
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in 
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional 
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 2, CARB estimates the no 
action Coachella Valley VOC emissions at 2.0 tpd in 2032.
    For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model 
for the 2032 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding 
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model 
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year 
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle 
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects 
hypothetical VOC emissions in the Coachella Valley if CARB had not 
added or implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there 
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and 
the attainment year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips 
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions 
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based 
on the values in Table 2, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to 
growth in VMT and trips in the Coachella Valley would have been 0.4 tpd 
(i.e., 2.0 tpd minus 1.6 tpd). This hypothetical difference establishes 
the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the 
combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any necessary 
additional TCSs and TCMs.
    For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the 
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at 
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB 
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented 
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the 
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of 
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list 
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final 
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018). 
Also see email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur 
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2, the projected actual attainment year VOC 
emissions are 1.6 tpd. CARB compared this value against the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional 
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because 
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT 
offset

[[Page 77780]]

ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the 
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions 
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the Coachella Valley for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
(c) San Joaquin Valley
    Table 3 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each 
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions 
estimates for the San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demonstration for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.

 Table 3--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the San Joaquin Valley NAA for the 2015 Ozone
                                                      NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    VMT (1,000/   Starts (1,000/   VOC Emissions
                            Scenario                                   day)            day)            (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................         101,828          13,223            26.6
No Action (2037); no new measures, with VMT growth..............         128,611          18,534            13.4
VMT Offset Ceiling (2037); no new measures, no VMT growth.......         101,828          14,685            10.2
Projected Actual (2037); new measures included, with VMT growth.         128,611          18,171            10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``SJV Total--8 GAIs--VMT Offset ROG Emissions--April 7 2020_USEPA (updated 081222).xlsx,'' included in
  email dated August 15, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX). Note that the
  San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demo in the July 2022 submittal erroneously reported VMT and emissions data for
  San Joaquin County rather than the entire San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. CARB provided VMT, starts,
  and emissions data for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in CARB's August 15, 2022 supplemental email
  to EPA Region IX.

    For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the 
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As 
shown in Table 3, CARB estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions 
at 26.6 tpd in 2017.
    For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs added or implemented since the base year and 
incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran EMFAC2017 with the VMT and 
starts data corresponding to the 2037 attainment year without the 
emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control programs 
added or implemented after the base year. Thus, the no action scenario 
reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in the attainment year if CARB 
had not added or implemented any additional TCSs and TCMs after 2017. 
As shown in Table 3, CARB estimates the no action San Joaquin Valley 
VOC emissions at 13.4 tpd in 2037.
    For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model 
for the 2037 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding 
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model 
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year 
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle 
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects 
hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB had not 
added or implemented any TCSs and TCMs after the base year and if there 
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and 
the attainment year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips 
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions 
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based 
on the values in Table 3, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to 
growth in VMT and trips in the San Joaquin Valley would have been 3.2 
tpd (i.e., 13.4 tpd minus 10.2 tpd). This hypothetical difference 
establishes the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be 
offset by the combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any 
necessary additional TCSs and TCMs.
    For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the 
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at 
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB 
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented 
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the 
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of 
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Attachment A-1 to the December 2022 submittal includes a 
list of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA 
final action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 
(June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 
18, 2018), and email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur 
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 3, the projected actual attainment year VOC 
emissions are 10.0 tpd. CARB compared this value against the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional 
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because 
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT 
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the 
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions 
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
(d) West Mojave Desert
    Table 4 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each 
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions 
estimates for the West Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 77781]]



   Table 4--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for West Mojave Desert NAA for the 2015 Ozone
                                                      NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    VMT (1,000/   Starts (1,000/   VOC Emissions
                            Scenario                                   day)            day)            (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................          31,687           3,871             7.7
No Action (2032); no new measures, with VMT growth..............          38,740           5,076             4.4
VMT Offset Ceiling (2032); no new measures, no VMT growth.......          31,687           4,286             4.0
Projected Actual (2032); new measures included, with VMT growth.          38,740           4,975             3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: December 2020 submittal, Tables 1 and 2, p. 6-7. Starts data provided in attachment (``Western Mojave
  VMT Offset--July 2020 Activity--July 24 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated July 5, 2022, from Nesamani
  Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).

    For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the 
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As 
shown in Table 4, CARB estimates the West Mojave Desert VOC emissions 
at 7.7 tpd in 2017.
    For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs and TCMs added or implemented 
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran 
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2032 
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor 
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year. 
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in 
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional 
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 4, CARB estimates the no 
action West Mojave Desert VOC emissions at 4.4 tpd in 2032.
    For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model 
for the 2032 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding 
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model 
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year 
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle 
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects 
hypothetical VOC emissions in the West Mojave Desert if CARB had not 
added or implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there 
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and 
the attainment year.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips 
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions 
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based 
on the values in Table 4, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to 
growth in VMT and trips in the West Mojave Desert would have been 0.4 
tpd (i.e., 4.4 tpd minus 4.0 tpd). This hypothetical difference 
establishes the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be 
offset by the combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any 
necessary additional TCSs and TCMs.
    For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the 
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at 
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB 
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented 
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the 
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of 
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list 
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final 
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018), 
and email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB) to 
John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 4, the projected actual attainment year VOC 
emissions are 3.8 tpd. CARB compared this value against the 
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional 
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to 
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because 
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT 
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows 
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the 
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions 
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the West Mojave Desert for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submittals
    The EPA reviewed the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin 
Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations in the July 2020 submittal 
and the West Mojave Desert VMT emissions offset demonstration in the 
December 2020 submittal. Based on our review, we propose to find CARB's 
analysis to be consistent with our August 2012 Guidance and consistent 
with the emissions and vehicle activity estimates provided by CARB. We 
agree that the mobile source measures adopted by CARB and implemented 
by SCAG and the San Joaquin Valley MPOs are sufficient to offset growth 
in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast, 
Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave Desert for the 
purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to approve the 
South Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave 
Desert VMT emissions offset demonstration elements as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).

III. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section 
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the following as revisions 
to the California SIP:
     VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the July 27, 
2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South 
Coast), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), and San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment areas as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
     VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the December 
28, 2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties 
(West Mojave Desert) as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

[[Page 77782]]

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act not already approved by the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This action will not impose any requirements on small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship 
between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    The state's submission does not apply to any Indian reservation 
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as 
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record 
indicating that this action would be inconsistent with the stated goals 
of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people 
of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 14, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-27511 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P