Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; Imperial County, California, 11817-11822 [2020-03152]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11817-11822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03152]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0562; FRL-10005-51-Region 9]


Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 
Requirements; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 
Imperial County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two 
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 
California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 
2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the 
Imperial County nonattainment area, as follows. The EPA is approving 
the ``Imperial County 2017 State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' (``Imperial Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan'') and the 
portions of the ``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation 
Plan'' (``2018 SIP Update'') that address the requirement for a 
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration for Imperial County for 
the 2008 ozone standards. In addition, the EPA is determining, based on 
the ``Imperial County Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Retrospective 
Analysis for the 75 ppb 8-hour Ozone Standard'' (``Imperial Ozone 
Retrospective Demonstration''), that the Imperial County nonattainment 
area would have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the ``Moderate'' area 
attainment date of July 20, 2018, but for emissions emanating from 
Mexico, and therefore is not subject to the CAA requirements pertaining 
to reclassification upon failure to attain. As a result of these final 
actions, the Imperial County nonattainment area will remain classified 
as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective on March 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0562. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3964, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA. The EPA is approving portions of the 
Imperial Ozone Plan that address the requirements for emissions 
statements, a base year emissions inventory, a reasonably available 
control measures

[[Page 11818]]

(RACM) demonstration, a demonstration of attainment of the standards by 
the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from Mexico, 
and motor vehicle emissions budgets. We are finalizing our proposed 
determination that Imperial County met its RFP requirements and 
therefore determining the requirement for contingency measures for 
failing to meet RFP is moot. We are also finalizing our proposed 
approval of the State's determination of attainment by the attainment 
date but for international emissions, and therefore determining that 
contingency measures for failing to attain the standard are not 
required. The EPA is also approving the portions of the 2018 SIP Update 
that address the requirement for a reasonable further progress 
demonstration for Imperial County for the 2008 ozone standards.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comment and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On November 1, 2019 (84 FR 58641), the EPA proposed to approve, 
under CAA section 110(k)(3), two submittals from the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB or ``State'') and the Imperial County Air 
Pollution Control District (``District'') as revisions to the 
California SIP for the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area.\1\ The 
relevant SIP revisions include the Imperial Ozone Plan and the portions 
of the 2018 SIP Update that address the requirement for an RFP 
demonstration for Imperial County for the 2008 ozone standards. We also 
proposed to determine, based on a separate demonstration submitted by 
the State of California, that the Imperial County nonattainment area 
would have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the ``Moderate'' area 
attainment date of July 20, 2018, but for emissions emanating from 
outside of the United States (specifically, from Mexico), and therefore 
is not subject to the CAA requirements pertaining to reclassification 
upon failure to attain. For more information on these submittals, 
please see our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Imperial County ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 
ozone standards includes the entire county. Both the Quechan Tribe 
of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres Martinez Desert 
Cahuilla Indians have lands within Imperial County. A precise 
description of the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area is 
contained in 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''), including information on the 
provisions of CAA section 179B, entitled ``International Border 
Areas.'' \3\ To summarize, the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area 
is classified as Moderate for the 2008 ozone standards, and the 
Imperial Ozone Plan that is the subject of this final action was 
developed to address the requirements for this Moderate 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 standard 
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 federal term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
    \3\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'') \4\ 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 RFP. To address this issue, CARB submitted an 
updated RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update that relied on a 2011 
baseline year, along with updated motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(MVEBs) associated with the new RFP milestone years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements 
contained in the Imperial Ozone Plan and the portions of the 2018 SIP 
Update that address the requirement for an RFP demonstration for 
Imperial County for the 2008 ozone standards, evaluated them for 
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded 
that they meet all applicable requirements. More specifically, in our 
proposed rule, we proposed to approve the following:
     Emissions statement certification as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 182(A)(3)(B);
     Base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements 
of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 with respect 
to attainment planning;
     RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);
     RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 182(b)(1), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(4)(i); and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2017 RFP milestone 
year because they are consistent with the RFP demonstration and the 
demonstration of attainment but for international emissions that are 
approved herein and meet the other criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e); \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In light of CARB's request to limit the duration of the 
approval of the budgets in the Imperial Ozone Plan 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. 84 FR 58641, 58658-58659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also proposed that finalization of this action regarding the 
179B demonstration would render the RFP contingency measure requirement 
of CAA section 172(c)(9) moot and that attainment contingency measures 
would no longer be required.
    We also note that since signature of our proposed action on the 
Imperial Ozone Plan, we have finalized a separate action approving in 
part and conditionally approving in part certain portions of the 
Imperial Ozone Plan (Chapter 7, ``Reasonably Available Control 
Technology Assessment'' and App. B, ``Reasonably Available Control 
Technology Analysis for the 2017 Imperial County State Implementation 
Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The final action on the Imperial RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone 
standard has been signed but has not yet published in the Federal 
Register; therefore, we have included a copy of the signed final 
action in the docket for this action. See also, 84 FR 58647, note 
54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given our proposal that the Imperial Ozone Plan meets all 
requirements for the Imperial County Moderate ozone nonattainment area, 
other than the requirement to demonstrate attainment, and our 
evaluation of the State's lines of evidence that together support the 
conclusion that Imperial County's SIP submission demonstrated the area 
would have attained the 2008 ozone

[[Page 11819]]

NAAQS by the July 20, 2018 attainment date but for emissions emanating 
from Mexico, under CAA section 179B(a), the EPA proposed to approve the 
Imperial Ozone Plan's section 179B attainment demonstration as meeting 
the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(1)(A), and 179B(a) 
and 40 CFR 51.1108.
    Concurrently, we proposed to determine, consistent with our 
evaluation of the Imperial Ozone Plan, the 2018 Update, and the 
Imperial Ozone Retrospective Demonstration, that the Imperial County 
nonattainment area would have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 
Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018, but for emissions 
emanating from Mexico, under CAA section 179B(b). We also stated that, 
if our proposed determination were finalized, the EPA's obligation 
under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine whether the area attained 
by its attainment date would not apply and the area would not be 
reclassified.
    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 of the above-listed elements of the Imperial 
Ozone Plan and our determination that Imperial County would have 
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of 
July 20, 2018, but for emissions emanating from Mexico.

II. Public Comment and EPA Responses

    The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on November 
1, 2019, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and 
closed on December 2, 2019. During this period, the EPA received one 
set of comments from the Center for Biological Diversity, Comite Civico 
del Valle, Inc., and Air Law for All, Ltd., and one anonymous comment.
    The anonymous commenter describes ozone generators and safety 
sensors, issues that are outside the scope of this rulemaking. With 
respect to the other commenter, we provide summaries of the comments 
and our responses thereto in the following paragraphs. All the comments 
received are included in the docket for this action.
    Comment 1: The commenter argues that any ``but for'' determination 
should be conditioned on California following through on its commitment 
to enhance and fund border pollution activities, including the creation 
and funding of a CARB assistant executive officer position for border 
pollution. The commenter asserts that CARB has acknowledged the need to 
create and fund such a position with staff to focus on border pollution 
issues, referencing, among other things, statements made at a CARB 
public meeting on December 13, 2018 to consider a particulate matter 
plan for Imperial County. The commenter contends that the State's 
failure to fund and staff the assistant executive officer position for 
border pollution indicates that Imperial County does not have adequate 
personnel and funding to carry out the plan, as required by CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    Response: The commenter correctly asserts that CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires the State and District to have adequate 
personnel and funding to meet their obligations under the SIP, and with 
respect to the specific obligations of the SIP submission at issue in 
this action. The EPA has previously determined that California met the 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requirements for the 2008 ozone 
standard.\7\ The commenter expresses concern that the State and 
District have not yet created, filled, or funded a specific position 
for an individual who will focus on international transport issues, as 
the State and District have previously had under consideration. The EPA 
agrees with the State, District, and commenters that the creation of an 
official position to focus on international transport issues might be a 
helpful approach to making progress on such problems. However, at this 
time neither the State nor the District included the creation of an 
assistant executive officer position for border pollution as an element 
or a commitment of the pre-exiting SIP or in the submitted Imperial 
Ozone Plan at issue in this action.\8\ Thus, the creation, filling, or 
funding of such a position is not part of the SIP or the Imperial Ozone 
Plan, and thus is not relevant for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 
or an appropriate basis for the EPA to not finalize its proposed action 
to approve the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016).
    \8\ While several board members expressed support for staffing a 
position dedicated to the coordination of various border-related 
initiatives at its December 13, 2018 meeting, the Board did not 
state that it intended to establish an assistant executive officer 
for border pollution. California Air Resources Board meeting 
transcript, 258-265, December 13, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters also suggest that the EPA should require the 
creation and funding of such a position as a part of the ``but for'' 
determination of CAA section 179B. Neither section 179B(a) nor the 
relevant statutory provisions applicable to nonattainment plan 
requirements impose a specific obligation on states to create, fill, or 
fund a position for personnel focusing on interstate transport. 
Similarly, sections 179B(b)-(d) do not explicitly require states to 
meet a requirement that they have such personnel. Again, the EPA agrees 
that having such personnel could be useful, but does not agree that it 
is a requirement for purposes of section 179B. Because the creation and 
funding of the position is neither a requirement of the existing SIP or 
an element of the Imperial Ozone Plan, nor an explicit requirement of 
CAA section 179B, the EPA does not in this case consider it to be a 
relevant consideration for the ``but for'' analysis.
    Comment 2: The commenter states that CAA sections 179B(a)(1) and 
(2) provide that the EPA shall approve a plan or plan revision if (1) 
it meets all requirements applicable to it under the Act, other than 
the requirement to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the 
relevant air quality standard, and (2) the submitting state establishes 
to the EPA's satisfaction that the plan would be adequate to attain and 
maintain the standard by the relevant attainment date, but for 
emissions emanating from outside the United States. The commenter 
states that the EPA's proposed action did not discuss or explain the 
statutory terms ``maintenance'' and ``maintain'' in CAA section 179B(a) 
and argues that the EPA's failure to give any meaning to these terms 
constitutes a failure of notice and is contrary to law.
    The commenter suggests that the term ``maintenance'' addresses a 
gap in the statutory structure of the Act. The commenter states that 
after an applicable attainment date, areas not affected by 
international emissions have additional planning obligations. 
Specifically, the commenter states that areas not affected by 
international emissions and that do not attain the applicable standard 
have additional attainment-related requirements, and areas not affected 
by international emissions that do attain the applicable standard have 
(at least in practice) maintenance plan requirements. The commenter 
states that, on the other hand, areas with attainment plans approved 
under CAA section 179B ``may never have additional obligations [even] 
if the area never attains.'' The commenter states that a state may 
never have the opportunity or obligation to submit a maintenance plan 
because the EPA can only redesignate an area based on its design value 
and the design value cannot be modified based on international border 
emissions. The commenter concludes, ``In other words after EPA approves 
an attainment plan under section 179B(a) and exempts the area from 
reclassification, there is a gap in the statute: The state has no

[[Page 11820]]

additional obligations to address maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    The commenter states that the EPA must address the statutory terms 
``maintenance'' and ``maintain.'' The commenter identifies a few 
arguments that it believes the EPA might make in response to this 
initial comment and puts forth counter arguments to those anticipated 
EPA arguments. The commenter contends that the EPA cannot show that 
Congress did not mean ``maintenance'' and ``maintain'' as a matter of 
historical fact (i.e., legislative history) or as a matter of logic and 
statutory construction, and that the EPA cannot negate the 
``maintenance'' requirement by arguing that it is not an applicable 
requirement.
    Similarly, the commenter states that certain permitting programs 
(minor new source review, prevention of significant deterioration, and 
nonattainment new source review) are designed to maintain the NAAQS 
with respect to emissions from stationary sources and speculates that 
the EPA might assert that these programs are the portion of the 
implementation plan to which ``maintenance'' in CAA section 179B(a) 
applies. The commenter provides a counter argument that these 
permitting programs are insufficient to satisfy CAA section 179B(a)'s 
requirements regarding maintenance because they are not designed to 
maintain the NAAQS in section 179B areas and do not cover mobile 
sources, pesticides, fertilizers, and most non-point sources such as 
confined animal feeding operations.
    The commenter suggests one possible way to interpret the meaning of 
``maintenance'' and ``maintain'' in CAA section 179B would be to 
require the plan ``to show that emissions within the state will not 
grow after the attainment date in such a way that the root cause of the 
failure to attain shifts from international border emissions to in-
state emissions.''
    Response: As noted by the commenter, CAA section 179B(a) provides 
that the EPA must approve a state implementation plan or plan revision 
if (1) the plan meets all applicable requirements, other than a 
requirement to demonstrate attainment and maintenance by the applicable 
attainment date, and (2) the state establishes to the satisfaction of 
the Administrator that a state plan would be adequate to attain and 
maintain by the applicable attainment date ``but for emissions 
emanating from outside of the United States.'' As further noted by the 
commenter, CAA section 179B(b) provides that a state that establishes 
that it would have attained the standard by the attainment date is not 
subject to classification to a higher nonattainment classification 
pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) \9\ or (5), but does not condition 
this exemption from reclassification on any demonstration of 
maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As we explained in our proposed action, CAA section 179B(b) 
erroneously refers to section CAA 181(a)(2); the correct cross-
reference is section 181(b)(2). 84 FR 58660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute provides little guidance regarding the meaning of the 
terms ``maintenance'' and ``maintain'' in CAA sections 179B(a)(1) and 
(2). For example, regarding the timing of the maintenance requirement, 
one possible interpretation of the statutory language is that the 
state's demonstration must show that the plan revision is adequate to 
attain and ``maintain'' the NAAQS ``by,'' that is, up to, the 
attainment date. Another possible interpretation is that the statute 
requires the state to demonstrate that the plan revision is adequate to 
maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date. Under either of these 
readings, available emissions information from California indicates 
that its plan is adequate to maintain the NAAQS but for emissions 
emanating from Mexico, as the State's emissions are projected to 
decline into the future. Therefore, we disagree that it is necessary to 
resolve this ambiguity in this action and we disagree with the 
commenter's conclusion that the proposal was ``contrary to law'' based 
on a failure to provide notice of the EPA's interpretation of those 
terms.
    The commenter suggests that if the EPA were to interpret 
``maintain'' in CAA section 179B(a)(1) and (2) as requiring a 
demonstration of maintenance beyond the attainment date, one way to do 
so would be to conduct an analysis of the area's emissions some time 
into the future. We note that the EPA evaluates these types of 
prospective emissions projections in other maintenance analyses such as 
in the context of redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment 
under CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, although such provisions are 
not applicable here.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the EPA's guidance regarding redesignations, the EPA 
suggests that maintenance of the NAAQS for areas that have already 
attained the standard may be demonstrated by either showing that 
future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed 
the level of the attainment inventory (i.e., emissions at the time 
the area attained the relevant NAAQS) or by modeling to show that 
the mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of 
the NAAQS. Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Subject: ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Available emissions inventory information from the District and 
CARB regarding future domestic emissions of ozone precursors 
(NOX and VOC) in Imperial County and regionally indicates 
that emissions will decline.\11\ For example, in February 2019, the 
District and CARB submitted a redesignation request and maintenance 
plan for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. The District included 
NOX and VOC emissions inventories for 2030 as part of the 
maintenance plan's demonstration that Imperial County will maintain the 
1987 PM10 NAAQS. (NOX and VOCs are subject to 
regulation as precursors for both PM10 and ozone.) The 
NOX and VOC inventories for 2030 in the PM10 
maintenance plan show declining emissions for both pollutants. 
Specifically, the District projects that annual average NOX 
emissions will decline from 17.14 tons per day (tpd) in 2016 to 11.77 
tpd in 2030 and that annual average VOC emissions will decline from 
15.26 tpd in 2016 to 14.51 tpd in 2030.\12\ In addition, CARB's 
California Emissions Projections Analysis Model (CEPAM) emissions 
database shows that ozone precursors will decline in Imperial County 
over the same time-period.\13\ Specifically, the summer day emissions 
inventory \14\ for ozone precursors shows decreases that are consistent 
with those in the PM10 maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Memorandum dated February 3, 2020, from Carol Bohnenkamp 
(EPA) to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0562, Subject: ``Ozone 
Precursor Emission Inventory Trends for Imperial County, 
California.''
    \12\ ``Imperial County 2018 Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in 
Diameter (PM10),'' submitted by CARB to EPA on February 
13, 2019 as a revision to the Imperial County portion of the 
California SIP, accessible at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/imperial/sip.pdf.
    \13\ CARB's CEPAM 2016 Standard Emission Tool is accessible at 
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat/fcemssumcat2016.php.
    \14\ Because warm weather facilitates the formation of ground-
level ozone, attainment demonstrations in ozone plans are based on 
emissions inventories for summer days. There is not a strong 
seasonal correlation for PM10 levels in Imperial County, 
so the PM10 inventories are based on annual average days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, CARB's CEPAM emissions database indicates that 
region-wide domestic emissions of ozone precursors in upwind areas that 
have potential contribution to ozone levels in Imperial County are also 
projected to decrease over the next decade.\15\ For example, 
NOX emissions in the South Coast Air Basin are projected to 
decline from 306.5 tpd in

[[Page 11821]]

2020 to 204.9 tpd in 2031, and VOC emissions are projected to decline 
from 388.6 tpd in 2020 to 358.3 tpd in 2031.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ CARB's CEPAM 2016 Standard Emission Tool. Emissions of 
ozone precursors in the South Coast Basin, as well as other areas in 
southern California, including San Diego, and Ventura, are projected 
to decline from 2020 to 2031.
    \16\ These projections are included in Table IX-2 of CARB's 
``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,'' which 
the EPA approved on October 31, 2019 (84 FR 52005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concern that there is a ``gap'' in 
the statute, we note that if domestic emissions were to increase such 
that the nonattainment problem were to be exacerbated, the EPA has the 
authority under CAA section 110(k)(5) to call for plan revisions to 
address substantially inadequate implementation plans.

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 Imperial Ozone Plan and the 2018 SIP Update submitted 
by CARB on November 14, 2017 and December 11, 2018, respectively:
     Emissions statement element, as meeting the requirements 
of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS;
     Base year emissions inventory element in the Imperial 
ozone plan 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 as meeting the requirements of 
CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; 
and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone year 
of 2017, as shown in Table 1 below, because they are consistent with 
the RFP demonstration and demonstration of attainment but for 
international emissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS finalized for approval 
herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).

  Table 1--2017 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Imperial County for
                          the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2017
                                         -------------------------------
                                             NOX (tpd)       VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Mobile Sources..................            6.53            3.13
Safety Margin...........................             0.4             0.8
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (rounded                7               4
 to nearest whole number)...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 SIP Update, Table II-2, and CARB's Technical Clarification
  Letter, Attachment A.

    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 \17\ prior to our taking final 
action on the future SIP revision that includes the updated budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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. 84 FR 
41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In finalizing this action, we are also rendering the RFP 
contingency measure requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9) moot and 
determining that attainment contingency measures are no longer required 
as discussed in section II.J of the proposed rule.
    Given our final determination that the Imperial Ozone Plan meets 
all requirements for the Imperial County Moderate ozone nonattainment 
area, other than the requirement to demonstrate attainment, and our 
evaluation of the State's lines of evidence that together support the 
conclusion that Imperial County would attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 
the July 20, 2018 attainment date but for emissions emanating from 
Mexico, the EPA is approving the Imperial Ozone Plan's section 179B 
attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 
172(c)(1), 182(b)(1)(A), and 179B(a) and 40 CFR 51.1108.
    Concurrently, we are determining, consistent with our evaluation of 
the Imperial Ozone Plan, the 2018 SIP Update, and the Imperial Ozone 
Retrospective Demonstration, that the Imperial County nonattainment 
area would have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area 
attainment date of July 20, 2018 but for emissions emanating from 
Mexico, under CAA section 179B(b). Therefore, the EPA's obligation 
under section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine whether the area attained by 
its attainment date no longer applies and the area will not be 
reclassified.

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 it is not a significant regulatory 
action 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

[[Page 11822]]

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).
    However, with respect to our determination that Imperial County 
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2018, but for emissions from 
Mexico, this action has tribal implications. Nonetheless, it neither 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Two tribes have areas of 
Indian country within or directly adjacent to the Imperial County ozone 
nonattainment area: The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian 
Reservation and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The EPA 
contacted both tribes with offers to consult on our proposed action; 
however, neither tribe requested consultation.
    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 April 27, 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: February 4, 2020.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(514)(ii)(A)(5) 
and (c)(530)(ii)(A)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (514) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, 
adopted on October 25, 2018, Chapter II (``SIP Elements for Imperial 
County'') and pages A-3 through A-6 of Appendix A (``Nonattainment Area 
Inventories''), only.
* * * * *
    (530) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Imperial County 2017 State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-
Hour Ozone Standard, adopted September 12, 2017, except Chapter 7 
(``Reasonably Available Control Technology Assessment'') and Appendix B 
(Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis for the 2017 Imperial 
County State Implementation Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'').
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(10) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.244  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Imperial, approved March 30, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-03152 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P