Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Coachella Valley; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements, 57714-57721 [2020-19162]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57714-57721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19162]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0241; FRL-10014-24-Region 9]


Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; 
Coachella Valley; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve portions of two state implementation plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Coachella Valley ozone 
nonattainment area (``Coachella Valley''). The two SIP revisions 
include the portions of the ``Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan'' 
and the ``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan'' 
that address ozone in the Coachella Valley. These submittals address 
the nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
including the requirements for an emissions inventory, emissions 
statements, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, 
reasonably available control measures, contingency measures, and motor 
vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA is taking final action to approve 
these submittals as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area 
requirements except for the contingency measure requirements, for which 
the EPA is deferring action.

DATES: This rule will be effective on October 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0241. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance 
in a language other than English or if you are a person with 
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, 
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3963 or [email protected].

Table of Contents

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

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On January 17, 2020 (85 FR 2949), the EPA proposed to approve, 
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(k)(3), and to conditionally 
approve, under CAA section 110(k)(4), portions of submittals from the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD or ``District'') as revisions to the 
California SIP for the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area.\1\ 
The relevant SIP revisions include the SCAQMD's Final 2016 Air Quality 
Management Plan (``2016 AQMP'') and CARB's 2018 Updates to the 
California State Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update''). 
Collectively, we refer to the relevant portions of the two SIP 
revisions as the ``2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP,'' and we refer to 
our January 17, 2020 proposed rule as the ``proposed rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Coachella Valley is located within Riverside County, and 
its boundaries generally align with the Riverside County portion of 
the Salton Sea Air Basin. For a precise description of the 
geographic boundaries of the Coachella Valley, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the 
ozone standards,\2\ area designations, and related SIP revision 
requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's implementing regulations for 
the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SIP 
Requirements Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR''). To summarize, the Coachella 
Valley ozone nonattainment area is classified as Severe for the 2008 
ozone standards, and the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP was developed 
to address the requirements for this Severe nonattainment area for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (one-hour average), the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS is 0.08 ppm (eight-hour average), and the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 
0.075 ppm (eight-hour average). CARB refers to reactive organic 
gases (ROG) in some of its ozone-related submittals. The CAA and the 
EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather than ROG, but both terms 
cover essentially the same set of gases. In this final rule, we use 
the term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we also discussed a decision issued by the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in South Coast Air Quality Management 
Dist. v. EPA (``South Coast II'') \3\ that vacated certain portions of 
the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR. The only aspect of the South Coast II 
decision that affects this action is the vacatur of the provision in 
the 2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to use an alternative baseline 
year for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP). To address 
this, in the 2018 SIP Update, CARB submitted an updated RFP 
demonstration that relied

[[Page 57715]]

on a 2011 baseline year as required, along with updated motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated with the new RFP milestone 
years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 
1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The term ``South Coast II'' is used in 
reference to the 2018 court decision to distinguish it from a 
decision published in 2006 also referred to as ``South Coast.'' The 
earlier decision involved a challenge to the EPA's Phase 1 
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone standard. South Coast Air 
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
    \4\ In a letter dated December 18, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region 9, CARB requested withdrawal of the RFP demonstration 
included in the 2016 AQMP submitted in April 2017. The RFP 
demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update replaced the demonstration in 
the 2016 AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements 
contained in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, evaluated them for 
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded 
that they meet all applicable requirements, with the exception of the 
attainment contingency measure element. More specifically, in our 
proposal rule, we determined the following:
     CARB and the District met all applicable procedural 
requirements for public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and 
submittal of the 2016 AQMP and 2018 SIP Update (see 85 FR 2953 from the 
proposed rule);
     The 2012 base year emissions inventory from the 2016 AQMP 
\5\ is comprehensive, accurate, and current and thereby meets the 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the future year baseline 
projections reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest 
planning assumptions and are properly supported by the SIP-approved 
stationary and mobile source measures (see 85 FR 2953-2955 from the 
proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The District provided the EPA with supplemental 
documentation (``2016 AQMP Inventory Supplement'') for the 2012 and 
2026 ozone season inventories relied on in the 2016 AQMP. See email 
dated June 28, 2019, from Zorik Pirveysian, SCAQMD, to John 
Ungvarsky, EPA, Subject: ``RE: Coachella Valley ozone inventory 
clarification and update on possible contingency measures.'' The 
2016 AQMP Inventory Supplement consists of two attachments to this 
email, which provide the detailed 2012 and 2026 ozone season 
inventories that were used for the summary in the 2016 AQMP. The 
inventories were generated on November 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The emissions statement element of the 2016 AQMP, 
including District Rule 301 (specifically, paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and 
(B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8)), meets the requirements for emissions 
statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2955 from the proposed rule);
     The process followed by the District to identify 
reasonably available control measures (RACM) is generally consistent 
with the EPA's recommendations; the District's rules and commitments 
made to adopt certain additional measures provide for the 
implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC); CARB 
and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provide 
for the implementation of RACM for mobile sources of NOX and 
VOC; there are no additional RACM that would advance attainment of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley by at least one year; and 
therefore, the 2016 AQMP and 2016 State Strategy \6\ provide for the 
implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 
CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2955-2959 from the 
proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CARB's RACM assessment and their 2016 State Strategy 
collectively contain CARB's evaluation of mobile source and other 
statewide control measures that reduce emissions of NOX 
and VOC in California, including the Coachella Valley. On October 1, 
2019, the EPA approved the 2016 State Strategy (84 FR 52005). 
Chapter 3 of 2016 State Strategy includes a commitment to take 
action on new measures and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions 
in the South Coast. Because the Coachella Valley's attainment of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS is dependent on progress made in the upwind South 
Coast, this commitment will contribute to attainment in the 
Coachella Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The photochemical modeling in the 2016 AQMP shows that 
existing CARB and District control measures, plus CARB and District 
commitments to achieve additional emissions reductions in the South 
Coast as described in the 2016 AQMP and 2016 State Strategy, are 
sufficient to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
dates in the Coachella Valley; given the extensive documentation in the 
2016 AQMP of modeling procedures and good model performance, the 
modeling is adequate to support the attainment demonstrations for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS; and therefore, the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP 
meets the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA section 
182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108 (see 85 FR 2959-2963 from the proposed 
rule);
     As provided in our SRR, the previously-approved 15 percent 
rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration for the Coachella Valley \7\ meets 
the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for the Coachella Valley 
for the 2008 ozone (see 85 FR 2963-2965 from the proposed rule);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 82 FR 26854 (June 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update provides for 
emissions reductions of VOC or NOX of at least 3 percent per 
year on average for each three-year period from a 2011 baseline year 
through the attainment year and thereby meets the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 
51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2963-2965 from 
the proposed rule);
     The 2016 AQMP (specifically, Chapter 7 and Appendix VI-E 
(``VMT Offset Demonstration'')) demonstrates that CARB and SCAG have 
adopted sufficient transportation control strategies to offset the 
growth in emissions from growth in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) and 
vehicle trips in the Coachella Valley, and thereby complies with the 
VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 85 FR 2965-2968 from the proposed 
rule); \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As discussed in section III.C.2.b and C.3 of the proposed 
rule (see 85 FR 2957-2959), because of the significant influence of 
pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin on ozone 
conditions in the Coachella Valley, no transportation control 
measures (TCMs) are reasonably available for implementation in the 
Coachella Valley for the purposes of meeting the RACM requirement 
and neither the District nor CARB relies on implementation of any 
TCMs in the Coachella Valley to demonstrate implementation of RACM 
in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP. Similarly, no TCMs are 
included in the VMT emissions offset demonstration for the Coachella 
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The MVEBs for the 2020 and 2023 RFP milestone years and 
the 2026 attainment year from the 2018 SIP Update are consistent with 
the RFP and attainment demonstrations, are clearly identified and 
precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 93.118(e), including the adequacy 
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) (see 85 FR 2970-2971 from the 
proposed rule); \9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In light of CARB's request to limit the duration of the 
approval of the budgets in the 2018 SIP Update and in anticipation 
of the EPA's approval, in the near term, of an updated version of 
CARB's EMFAC (short for EMission FACtor) model for use in SIP 
development and transportation conformity in California to include 
updated vehicle mix and emissions data, we proposed to limit the 
duration of our approval of the budgets until replacement budgets 
have been found adequate. See 85 FR 2971 from the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Through previous EPA approvals of California's vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, the 1994 ``Opt-Out Program'' 
SIP revision, the 1993 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station SIP 
revision, and the 2016 annual monitoring network plan for the South 
Coast and Coachella Valley, the 2016 AQMP adequately addresses the 2008 
ozone NAAQS; the enhanced I/M requirements in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 
40 CFR 51.1102; the clean fuels fleet program in CAA sections 182(c)(4) 
and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102; and the enhanced ambient air monitoring 
requirements in CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102

[[Page 57716]]

(see 85 FR 2971-2973 from the proposed rule).
    With respect to the RFP contingency measure element of the 2016 
Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, we proposed to conditionally approve the 
element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on commitments by CARB and 
the District to supplement the element through submission of a SIP 
revision within one year of final conditional approval action that will 
include a revised or new District rule or rules. In the proposed rule, 
we did not propose action on the attainment contingency measure. See 85 
FR 2968-2970 from the proposed rule.
    Please see our proposed rule for more information concerning the 
background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the 
rationale for approval or conditional approval of the above-listed 
elements of the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on January 
17, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and 
closed on February 18, 2020. During this period, the EPA received one 
comment letter submitted by a private individual and one comment letter 
submitted by Air Law for All on behalf of the Center for Biological 
Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health (collectively 
referred to herein as ``CBD'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's proposed rule for this action (85 FR 2949) noted 
that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the EPA issued a 
notice of final rulemaking on September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51310) that 
withdrew the EPA's waiver of preemption of CARB's zero-emission 
vehicle sales mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. The EPA 
also noted that if the federal fuel economy and GHG standards were 
finalized prior to our final rulemaking on the 2016 Coachella Valley 
Ozone SIP, we would evaluate and address, as appropriate, the impact 
of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) rule on the proposed 
rule (85 FR 2949, 2955). The EPA finalized SAFE on April 30, 2020 
(85 FR 24174). The EPA did not receive any comments on the 2016 
Coachella Valley Ozone SIP proposed rule regarding the impact of 
SAFE. The EPA believes that any potential adverse ozone impacts 
arising from SAFE, within the context of this SIP action, are 
inconsequential for reasons similar to those described in the EPA's 
June 2020 ``Response to Comments Document for the EPA's Final Action 
on the San Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS'' (``Response to Comments Document'') 
associated with the EPA's final rule, ``Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine 
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements, San Joaquin 
Valley, California,'' 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). See Response 4 on 
page 56 in the Response to Comments Document included in the docket 
for today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #1: The private individual expresses overall support for 
the proposed action. The commenter has experienced and witnessed the 
effects of air pollution in the Coachella Valley and describes 
incidences of asthma and breathing problems in the area. The commenter 
states that the measures established in the proposed rule allow for a 
better understanding and stronger analysis of the factors that affect 
air quality in the Coachella Valley, and cites examples of the health 
and environmental benefits of reduced air pollution. The commenter 
supports the proposed rule because it will help address those factors. 
The commenter also suggests that a localized analysis of air quality in 
desert cities in the Coachella Valley would be appreciated, and 
questions whether there is a study available regarding gas absorption 
by the Salton Sea and whether pollutants might be emanating from the 
Salton Sea.
    Response to Comment #1: The EPA thanks the commenter for their 
support for the proposed action. We agree with the commenter that this 
rule will lead to air quality improvements in the Coachella Valley. 
Regarding the commenter's suggestion for a localized analysis of air 
quality in desert cities of the Coachella Valley, we direct the 
commenter's attention to the District's ``Annual Air Quality Monitoring 
Network Plan,'' which contains additional information and analysis on 
the District's monitoring sites and instrumentation, including in the 
Coachella Valley.\11\ This analysis reflects the federal monitoring 
requirements for ambient ozone,\12\ which are based on populations and 
monitored ozone concentrations for a Metropolitan Statistical Area 
(MSA). The Coachella Valley is located within the Riverside-San 
Bernardino-Ontario, CA (``RSBO'') MSA. Based on population and 
monitored ozone concentrations in the RSBO MSA, a minimum of three 
ozone monitoring sites are required.\13\ The SCAQMD operates 13 
monitoring sites in the RSBO MSA, including the Palm Springs and Indio 
monitors located near significant population centers in the Coachella 
Valley. The Palm Springs and Indio ozone monitoring sites are 
``neighborhood scale'' sites that characterize concentrations within a 
few kilometers, which is an appropriate spatial scale for identifying 
maximum ozone concentrations for the Coachella Valley.\14\ In addition, 
the SCAQMD is required to submit to the EPA a network assessment every 
5 years that includes a determination of whether the network meets 
monitoring objectives, such as compliance with ambient air quality 
standards and providing air pollution data to the public in a timely 
manner, and whether any new sites are needed to meet these 
objectives.\15\ This regular evaluation ensures that the existing 
SCAQMD ozone monitoring network provides an adequate measure of ozone 
air quality in the Coachella Valley, including desert cities in the 
area, to serve as the basis for the control strategy and other planning 
elements of the Coachella Valley Ozone SIP. Localized analysis of other 
potential pollutants is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ SCAQMD, Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 
2019 (``Monitoring Network Plan''). This is the most recent version 
reviewed by the EPA. The District recently prepared a 2020 update to 
this plan, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-network-plan/annual-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan-v2.pdf.
    \12\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1.
    \13\ Monitoring Network Plan, 26.
    \14\ Monitoring Network Plan, Appendix B.
    \15\ 40 CFR 58.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments pertaining to the Salton Sea, we note that 
efforts are ongoing to study and address the anticipated dust impacts 
associated with greater exposure of playa as the Salton Sea shoreline 
recedes. For example, the Salton Sea Task Force established in 2015 has 
developed a 10-year plan that endeavors to expedite wildlife habitat 
construction and to suppress dust from playa that will be exposed in 
the future. In 2013, the District established a new monitoring station 
in the community of Mecca, closer to the Salton Sea in the southeastern 
portion of the Coachella Valley. It is measuring coarse particulate 
matter continuously, as well as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a 
gas that smells like rotten eggs and is associated with natural 
processes occurring in the Salton Sea. An additional monitoring station 
measuring only H2S was also established in 2013 near the 
shore of the Salton Sea. However, concerns and efforts regarding 
H2S are not germane to the EPA's Coachella Valley proposed 
action relating to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. H2S is not a 
contributor to ambient ozone formation, and thus, not addressed in our 
proposed action on the 2016 Coachella Valley ozone SIP. The SCAQMD has 
issued odor advisories for the Coachella Valley due to elevated levels 
of H2S. Health information on H2S is available 
from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).\16\ 
Additionally, the SCAQMD maintains a website with current 
H2S monitored values in the Salton Sea area

[[Page 57717]]

where visitors can sign up for H2S alerts.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ATSDR, ``ToxGuide\TM\ for Hydrogen Sulfide 
H2S,'' December 2016, available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-114.pdf.
    \17\ https://saltonseaodor.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: CBD comments that the submittal fails to show that the 
substitute NOX emissions reductions will ``result in a 
reduction of ozone concentrations at least equivalent'' to the required 
3 percent per annum VOC emissions reductions, and as a result, the 
EPA's proposed approval is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to 
law.
    The commenter describes the relative roles of VOC and 
NOX in ozone formation, including the existence of an 
``optimum'' VOC to NOX ratio for a given level of VOC (i.e., 
a NOX concentration at which the maximum amount of ozone is 
produced). As explained by the commenter, in a ``NOX 
saturated'' situation where NOX levels exceed this optimum 
ratio, a reduction in NOX levels can lead to increases in 
ozone levels and in a ``NOX limited'' situation with 
NOX levels below the optimum ratio, VOC reductions toward 
the optimum ratio may have little effect on ozone levels. As a result, 
the commenter says, ozone response to precursor control can vary 
greatly between areas. The commenter argues that language in the CAA, 
including CAA sections 185B, 182(f), and 182(c)(2)(C), indicates that 
Congress was aware of these issues, including that in some scenarios 
NOX reductions may not decrease ozone concentrations.
    The commenter also points to the EPA's consideration of the 
relative effectiveness of NOX and VOC controls for 
interpollutant offset trading under the new source review (NSR) 
permitting program and in applying requirements for major stationary 
sources of VOC to NOX sources under CAA 182(f), noting that 
in these situations EPA guidance indicates that photochemical grid 
modeling of multiple scenarios should be conducted to support 
demonstrations related to the relative effectiveness of controls. 
Through these comparisons, the commenter suggests that the Coachella 
Valley submittal should have included similar photochemical grid 
modeling to determine whether the substitute NOX emission 
reductions result in equivalent ozone reductions. In a footnote, the 
commenter acknowledges that the submittal includes photochemical grid 
modeling for the attainment demonstration, but asserts that the results 
of this modeling ``do not rationally relate'' to the required 
demonstration for section 182(c)(2)(C), citing arguments that the 
attainment demonstration modeling addresses only a single data point 
rather than multiple scenarios, and that the underlying control 
strategy reflects other factors such as politics.
    Response to comment #2: We disagree with the commenter's 
characterization of the District's submittal and the EPA's proposed 
approval. As described below, we find that the analysis included with 
the modeling and control strategy in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone 
SIP and 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP adequately demonstrates that annual 
and cumulative NOX reductions in the South Coast and 
Coachella Valley will result in a reduction in ozone concentrations 
that is at least equivalent to the ozone reductions that would be 
achieved by VOC emission reductions alone. We therefore agree with the 
District's use of NOX substitution in the RFP demonstration 
for the Coachella Valley.
    In general, we agree with the commenter's descriptions of (1) the 
relative roles of VOC and NOX in ozone formation; (2) the 
potential to calculate an ``optimum'' VOC to NOX ratio for a 
given level of VOC; and (3) geographic differences in the ozone 
response to precursor control, depending on whether an area is 
``NOX saturated'' or ``NOX limited.'' We also 
agree with the commenter that Congress was aware of these issues and 
provided for the EPA to address them under provisions of the CAA. We 
find that the District's submittal adequately accounts for these 
issues, and that the District's control strategy and use of 
NOX substitution is consistent with the needs of the 
Coachella Valley.
    The modeling and control strategy included in the 2016 Coachella 
Valley Ozone SIP and 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP demonstrate that 
significant NOX reductions are needed for these areas to 
attain the 2008 ozone standards in 2026 and 2031, respectively. During 
development of the 2016 AQMP, the District evaluated the relative role 
of VOC and NOX reductions at 24 monitoring stations 
throughout the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas, 
with each station representing the region surrounding the station site. 
The District ran a set of simulations with incremental VOC and 
NOX emissions reductions. This information is presented in 
graphs, called ozone isopleths, of ozone levels resulting from various 
levels of emission reductions for each monitoring station.\18\ Each 
ozone isopleth provides a visual reference to evaluate hypothetical 
scenarios for reducing VOC and NOX emissions in sufficient 
amounts to reach attainment by showing the relative change in ozone 
concentration that would result from reductions in VOC and 
NOX.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachments 4 (2031 8-Hour Ozone 
Isopleths) and Attachment 5 (2023 8-Hour Ozone Isopleths). Isopleths 
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are included as Attachment 6 (22 1-Hour 
Ozone Isopleths).
    \19\ Contrary to the commenter's characterization of the 
District's modeling as representing only a single data point, these 
isopleths represent the results of the photochemical modeling of 
multiple scenarios across a range of VOC and NOX emission 
reduction levels, and allow for a comparison of the relative 
effectiveness of reducing one precursor or the other, or both, in 
greater or lesser quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These isopleths illustrate that a NOX-limited scenario 
persists throughout both areas, indicating that NOX 
reductions will be generally more effective than VOC reductions in 
reducing ozone concentrations. The isopleths for the two Coachella 
Valley monitoring sites (Indio-Jackson Street and Palm Springs-Fire 
Station) show that ozone concentrations are more sensitive to 
reductions in NOX than reductions in VOC across a wide range 
of VOC emissions quantities.\20\ These graphs represent ozone 
concentrations at various levels of VOC emissions (shown on the 
horizontal x-axis) and NOX emissions (shown on the vertical 
y-axis). The graphs show that when NOX emissions are 
reduced, the level of ozone decreases substantially, and that, in 
contrast, reducing the level of VOC emissions results in much less 
reduction in the level of ozone. The curve of the line on the graph 
indicates that reductions in NOX emissions will be 
considerably more effective than VOC reductions in reducing ozone 
concentrations on both a mass and percentage basis, and that VOC 
reductions will achieve only minor reductions in ozone concentrations 
even under scenarios involving large VOC reductions relative to current 
levels.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 4 at 9 and 16; Attachment 
5 at 10 and 17.
    \21\ In the South Coast air basin, the Fontana-Arrow Highway 
site (``Fontana site'') has the highest ozone design value and is a 
key site used in the modeling of attainment. The Fontana site 
isopleths for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards demonstrate that 
relying on VOC reductions alone would not reduce ozone levels as 
quickly as a strategy aimed at NOX reductions. The 
isopleths for the Fontana site show a similar pattern to those for 
the two Coachella Valley monitoring sites. Id.; 2016 AQMP, Appendix 
V, Attachment 4 at 7; Attachment 5 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the modeling and evaluation of attainment strategy 
options, the District determined that the most effective strategy in 
the South Coast for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards would be to 
reduce NOX emissions at a greater rate than VOC emissions, 
equal to roughly two tons of NOX for every ton of VOC.\22\ 
Specifically, the District determined that an additional 65.3 tons

[[Page 57718]]

per day (tpd) of VOC and 116.6 tpd of NOX beyond projected 
2023 baseline emissions would be needed to attain the 1997 ozone 
standards, and that an additional 71.0 tpd of VOC and 118.7 tpd of 
NOX beyond projected 2031 baseline emissions would be needed 
to attain the 2008 ozone standards. Accordingly, the District's control 
strategy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the South Coast and Coachella 
Valley areas relies on reductions of both pollutants, while 
prioritizing NOX reductions.\23\ The EPA agrees with this 
approach, based on the District's modeling and the isopleths included 
in the 2016 AQMP, and the accompanying analysis included in the 
submittal. Similarly, we find that this modeling and analysis 
adequately demonstrates that the NOX emissions reductions in 
the District's RFP demonstration will result in a reduction in ozone 
concentrations that is at least equivalent to what would result from an 
equal percentage of VOC emission reductions, based on the 
NOX-limited condition in the area and the relative 
effectiveness of reductions of each pollutant in reducing ozone 
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 2016 AQMP, Appendix V, Draft CEPA Source Level Emissions 
Reduction Summary, 2031 8-hour Ozone Attainment Scenario and 2023 8-
hour Ozone Attainment Scenario, 1-8.
    \23\ See, e.g., 2016 AQMP at ES-8 (``In order to meet ozone 
standards, both NOX and [VOC] emissions need to be 
addressed. However, air quality modeling demonstrates that 
NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in 
reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement 
in PM2.5 concentrations.''); 7-27 (``As mentioned a 
number of times in this chapter, poor ozone air quality in the 
Coachella Valley is primarily due to transport of ozone and its 
precursors from the upwind source region of the Basin and attainment 
in Coachella Valley is only possible with substantial emission 
reductions in the Basin. With this in mind, the proposed control 
strategy consists of two components: (1) An aggressive control 
strategy for NOX emission sources in the Basin; and (2) 
control of locally generated emissions via proposed state-wide or 
nationally-applied control measures implemented by state and federal 
actions.''). In contrast, for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, 
the District determined that VOC reductions would be as effective as 
NOX reductions. See 2016 AQMP at 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that section 
182(c)(2)(C) would require the District to provide additional 
photochemical grid modeling to demonstrate that the substituted 
NOX reductions are at least as effective as the VOC 
reductions that would otherwise be required under 182(c)(2)(B). 
Further, we believe that the commenter's comparison to the EPA's 
requirements and recommendations for interpollutant trading and 
exemption from NOX requirements under CAA 182(f) 
misunderstands the purpose of and requirements for NOX 
substitution under CAA 182(c)(2)(B) relative to these other examples. 
The guidance documents cited by the commenter for these examples are 
non-binding and do not constrain the EPA's discretion to adopt a 
different approach where appropriate.\24\ The documents recommend 
photochemical grid modeling in some scenarios, but do not require this 
approach or any other specific demonstration. This reflects the EPA's 
acknowledgement that the level of analysis required for any particular 
demonstration related to NOX and VOC reductions will differ 
based on context and local conditions, such as those noted by the 
commenter regarding the relative effectiveness of controlling each. In 
the context of CAA 182(c)(2)(C), in an area where isopleths generated 
through photochemical grid modeling and accompanying analysis indicate 
that the VOC reductions required under CAA 182(c)(2)(B) will be less 
effective for reducing ozone concentrations than a corresponding 
percentage reduction in NOX emissions, no additional 
modeling or demonstration is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See EPA, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of 
Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f)'' (Dec. 16, 1993), 
1; Memorandum dated January 14, 2005, from Stephen D. Page, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to 
EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, Subject: ``Guidance on 
Limiting Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Requirements Related to 8-
Hour Ozone Implementation,'' 3; EPA-454/R-18-004, ``Technical 
Guidance for Demonstration of Inter-Precursor Trading (IPT) for 
Ozone in the Nonattainment New Source Review Program,'' Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards (May 2018) (``IPT Guidance''), 2. 
The IPT Guidance specifically excludes applicability to RFP 
demonstrations. IPT Guidance at 2, n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons addressed above, we find that the District has 
provided ample evidence to demonstrate that NOX reductions 
will be more effective at reducing ozone concentrations in the South 
Coast and Coachella Valley. In this context, we find that the 
photochemical grid modeling conducted for the attainment demonstration, 
in combination with the supporting analysis accompanying the control 
strategy and other demonstrations, is sufficient to support the 
District's use of NOX substitution.
    Comment #3: CBD says that the EPA fails to give notice of how the 
submittal addresses the demonstration required under CAA 182(c)(2)(C) 
and thus the EPA's proposal is not in accordance with procedure 
required by law. In particular, the commenter says that EPA has failed 
to give adequate notice of its proposed interpretation of section 
182(c)(2)(C).
    The commenter observes that Table 5 of the proposed rule treats a 
percentage of NOX reductions as equivalent to an equal 
percentage of VOC reductions, but says that the proposed rule does not 
explain why a percentage reduction in NOX emissions results 
in equivalent ozone reductions to an equal reduction in VOC emissions, 
as required by section 182(c)(2)(C). The commenter suggests that the 
proposed rule may have used the procedure recommended in a December 
1993 guidance document from the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards entitled ``NOX Substitution Guidance,'' but 
notes that the NOX Substitution Guidance is not cited in the 
notice and is not listed in the docket index. The commenter argues that 
because the NOX Substitution Guidance is non-binding, the 
notice must indicate whether the EPA intends to adopt the Guidance's 
interpretation of the CAA, and that if the EPA instead believes that 
the Coachella Valley calculation is a legitimate demonstration for 
other reasons, it must re-propose the action.
    Response to Comment #3: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that 
the proposed rulemaking fails to give adequate notice regarding our 
proposed approval of the District's use of NOX substitution, 
or that we would be required to re-propose with additional 
justification prior to taking final action on this portion of the 
proposal. As described in Response #1 above, the modeling and analysis 
submitted to support the District's control strategy and attainment and 
RFP demonstrations highlight the need for significant NOX 
reductions in the Coachella Valley and South Coast Basin for the 
Coachella Valley to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and demonstrate that 
these NOX reductions will be more effective on a percentage 
basis than VOC reductions at reducing ozone concentrations in the 
nonattainment area. As described below, our proposal includes a summary 
and analysis of all relevant portions of the District's submittal, 
including NOX substitution in the RFP demonstration.
    Section III.E of the proposed rulemaking describes our proposed 
approval of the District's RFP demonstration.\25\ This section 
describes the statutory and regulatory requirements for an RFP 
demonstration, including the option under CAA 182(c)(2)(C) to 
substitute NOX emissions reductions for VOC reductions, and 
the reasons for the EPA's approval of this demonstration. The 
discussion includes citations to CAA 182(c)(2)(C) and the implementing 
regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as relevant portions of 
the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SRR that address the applicable 
requirements.\26\ The proposal explains that the District's RFP 
demonstration

[[Page 57719]]

substitutes NOX reductions for VOC reductions beginning in 
milestone year 2020, and the RFP demonstration, including the 
District's substitution of NOX reductions for VOC reductions 
on a percentage basis, is summarized in Table 5.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 85 FR 2949, 2963-2965.
    \26\ Id. at 2964 (see footnotes 98 and 103).
    \27\ Id. at 2964-2965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter notes, the proposed rulemaking does not include a 
specific justification in support of the District's use of 
NOX substitution on a percentage basis. However, the 
discussion and analysis are consistent with and supportive of this 
approach. For example, the discussion of the District's control 
strategy in section III.D.2.b of the proposed rulemaking explains that 
already-adopted measures are expected to achieve approximately 66 
percent of the NOX reductions needed from the 2012 base year 
for the South Coast to attain the NAAQS in 2023, and tables 2, 3, and 4 
show the remaining additional NOX reductions needed to show 
continued progress and attainment in the Coachella Valley. The 
discussion and tables in this section document the need for additional 
NOX reductions far exceeding the necessary additional VOC 
reductions, and show that ongoing NOX reductions are linked 
with the downward trend in ozone concentrations leading to attainment, 
consistent with the District's control strategy. As addressed above, 
given this need for NOX reductions and the modeled 
anticipated impact on the Coachella Valley, substituting NOX 
for VOC on a percentage-reduction basis represents a conservative 
approach that will result in considerably lower ozone concentrations 
than would result through the VOC reductions required under CAA 
182(c)(2)(B).
    As the commenter notes, this approach is consistent with the 
procedures outlined in the EPA's 1993 NOX Substitution 
Guidance. However, as the commenter notes, the NOX 
Substitution Guidance is non-binding, and the EPA must ensure that any 
use of NOX substitution is reasonable in light of local 
conditions and needs.\28\ In this case, our approval is supported by 
the NOX-limited conditions in the area and the need for 
NOX reductions as set out in the District's control 
strategy. For this reason, we find that the proposed rulemaking and 
associated supporting documents included in the docket for that action 
provide sufficient documentation that the NOX substitution 
used in the District's RFP demonstration is consistent with CAA section 
182(c)(2)(C), and we disagree that the EPA would be required to re-
propose with additional analysis or justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NOX Substitution Guidance at 3 (noting that 
the EPA approves substitution proposals on a case-by-case basis, 
including any reasonable substitution proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: CBD provides numerous comments directed at the EPA's 
NOX Substitution Guidance, contending that if the EPA 
intended to adopt the positions set forth in the NOX 
Substitution Guidance, the proposal would be arbitrary and capricious 
and contrary to law because of problems with the NOX 
Substitution Guidance. These comments assert generally that the 
NOX Substitution Guidance contradicts CAA 182(c)(2)(C) by 
recommending a procedure that fails to demonstrate any equivalence 
between VOC and NOX reductions, relies on incorrect policy 
assumptions, and gives legal justifications that are without merit.
    Response to Comment #4: Comments relating solely to the 
NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking action. As noted in our response to Comment #3 above, our 
approval of the District's use of NOX substitution is 
supported by local conditions and needs as documented in the modeling 
and analysis included in the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP, and is 
consistent with the requirements in CAA 182(c)(2)(C).
    Comment #5: CBD challenges the EPA's proposed conditional approval 
of RFP contingency measures as arbitrary and capricious, and contrary 
to law based on CAA requirements and interpreting case law. The 
commenter also argues that the District's commitment does not qualify 
for conditional approval.
    Response to Comment #5: Because the EPA is not finalizing our 
proposed conditional approval of the District's RFP contingency 
measures at this time, comments on this issue are outside the scope of 
this action and we are not providing specific responses to these 
comments.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rule and 
summarized herein, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final 
action to approve as a revision to the California SIP the following 
portions of the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan submitted by 
CARB on April 27, 2017, and the 2018 SIP Update submitted on December 
5, 2018, that compose the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP.
     Base year emissions inventory element in the 2016 AQMP as 
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 
CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     RACM demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     ROP demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS;
     RFP demonstration element in the 2018 SIP Update as 
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 
182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the 2016 
AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018 SIP Update for 
the 2020 and 2023 RFP milestone years and the 2026 attainment year, as 
shown below, because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment 
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS finalized for approval herein 
and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e);

 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the South
                                  Coast
                    [Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Budget year                      VOC             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020....................................             3.7             8.4
2023....................................             3.3             4.6
2026....................................             3.0             4.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57720]]

     Enhanced vehicle I/M program element in the 2016 AQMP as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Clean fuels fleet program element in the 2016 AQMP as 
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 and 40 
CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; and
     Enhanced monitoring element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting 
the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in the Coachella Valley, the EPA has previously approved SIP 
revisions that address the nonattainment area requirements for new 
source review (NSR) and for implementation of reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) for the South Coast, including the 
Coachella Valley, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 64026 
(December 13, 2018) (for NSR) and 82 FR 43850 (September 20, 2017) 
(for RACT). SIP revisions for the Coachella Valley addressing the 
penalty fee requirements under CAA sections 181(b)(4) and 185 are 
not yet due for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the MVEBs, we are taking final action to limit the 
duration of the approval of the MVEBs to last only until the effective 
date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any subsequently submitted 
budgets. We are doing so at CARB's request and in light of the benefits 
of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets \30\ prior to our taking final 
action on the future SIP revision that includes the updated budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the 
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for 
use by State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. See 84 
FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are taking final action to determine that paragraphs (e)(1)(A) 
and (B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8) of District Rule 301 (``Permitting 
and Associated Fees''), submitted to the EPA on August 5, 2019, and 
approved on October 1, 2019, at 84 FR 52005, meet the emission 
statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Lastly, we are deferring final action on the contingency measures 
element of the 2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP and 
attainment contingency measures.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state plans as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2020. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 25, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(514)(ii)(A)(7) 
and (c)(517)(ii)(B)(6) to read as follows:

[[Page 57721]]

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (514) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (7) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan, 
adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter VII (``SIP Elements for the 
Coachella Valley''), excluding section VII.D (``Contingency 
Measures''); and pages A-23 through A-26 of appendix A (``Nonattainment 
Area Inventories'').
* * * * *
    (517) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (6) Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017), Chapter 7 
(``Current and Future Air Quality--Desert Nonattainment Areas''), 
adopted on March 3, 2017, excluding the portions of pages 7-13 to 7-22 
regarding particulate matter and other criteria pollutants, and 
excluding the portions of pages 7-26 to 7-30 regarding reasonable 
further progress.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.244  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

    (a) * * *
    (11) Coachella Valley, approved October 16, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-19162 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P