Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date but for International Emissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Imperial County, California, 50030-50041 [2022-17190]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50030
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 1, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022–16906 Filed 8–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R9–OAR–2022–0501; FRL–10106–01–
R9]
Determination of Attainment by the
Attainment Date but for International
Emissions for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard; Imperial
County, California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or ‘‘Agency’’) is proposing
to determine that the Imperial County
nonattainment area would have attained
the 2015 ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) by the
August 3, 2021 ‘‘Marginal’’ area
attainment date, but for emissions
emanating from outside the United
States. If we finalize this proposed
action, the Imperial County
nonattainment area would no longer be
subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements pertaining to
reclassification upon failure to attain
and therefore would remain classified as
a Marginal nonattainment area for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. This action, when
finalized, will fulfill the EPA’s statutory
obligation to determine whether the
Imperial County ozone nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS by the
attainment date.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2022- 0501 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105; telephone number: (415) 972–
3964; email address: vagenas.ginger@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard and Area Designations
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas
C. Requirement for Determination of
Attainment of the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
D. International Transport and
Requirements for Clean Air Act Section
179B
II. Imperial County Ozone Determination of
Attainment but for International
Emissions
A. Imperial County Ozone Nonattainment
Area
B. Ozone Monitoring Sites in Imperial
County
C. Summary of the State’s Submission
D. EPA Review of the State’s Submission
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Background
A. 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard and Area
Designations
Ground-level ozone pollution is
formed from the reaction of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. These two pollutants, referred
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by
many types of sources, including onand non-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such
as lawn and garden equipment and
paints. Scientific evidence indicates that
adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to ground-level
ozone pollution. Exposure to ozone can
harm the respiratory system (the upper
airways and lungs), can aggravate
asthma and other lung diseases, and is
linked to premature death from
respiratory causes. People most at risk
from breathing air containing ozone
include people with asthma, children,
older adults, and people who are active
outdoors, especially outdoor workers.1
Under CAA section 109, the EPA
promulgates NAAQS (or ‘‘standards’’)
for pervasive air pollutants, such as
ozone. The EPA has previously
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979,
1997, and 2008.2 On October 26, 2015,
the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone
to establish a new 8-hour standard.3 In
that action, the EPA promulgated
identical revised primary and secondary
ozone standards designed to protect
public health and welfare that specified
an 8-hour ozone level of 0.070 parts per
million (ppm).4 Specifically, the
standard requires that the 3-year average
of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (i.e., the design value)
may not exceed 0.070 ppm.5 When the
design value does not exceed 0.070 ppm
at each ambient air quality monitoring
1 EPA Fact Sheet—Ozone and Health, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-04/
documents/20151001healthfs.pdf and in the docket
for this action.
2 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979), 62 FR 38856
(July 18, 1997), and 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
3 80 FR 65452.
4 Because the 2015 primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone are identical, for convenience,
the EPA refers to them in the singular as ‘‘the 2015
ozone NAAQS’’ or as ‘‘the standard.’’
5 A design value is a statistic used to compare
data collected at an ambient air quality monitoring
site to the applicable NAAQS to determine
compliance with the standard. The design value for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration. The design value is
calculated for each air quality monitor in an area
and the area’s design value is the highest design
value among the individual monitoring sites in the
area.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
site within the area, the area is deemed
to be attaining the ozone NAAQS.6
Section 107(d) of the CAA provides
that when the EPA promulgates a new
or revised NAAQS, the Agency must
designate areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable based on whether an area
is not meeting (or is contributing to air
quality in a nearby area that is not
meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the
NAAQS, or cannot be classified as
meeting or not meeting the NAAQS,
respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title
I of the CAA governs the classification,
state planning, and emissions control
requirements for any areas designated as
nonattainment for a revised primary
ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA
section 181(a)(1) also requires the EPA
to classify each ozone nonattainment
area at the time of designation, based on
the extent of the ozone problem in the
area (based on the area’s design value).
Classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas range from ‘‘Marginal’’ to
‘‘Extreme.’’ CAA section 182 provides
the specific attainment planning and
additional requirements that apply to
each ozone nonattainment area based on
its classification. CAA section 182, as
interpreted in the EPA’s implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 51.1308 through
51.1317, also establishes the timeframes
by which air agencies must submit and
implement SIP revisions to satisfy the
applicable attainment planning
elements, and the timeframes by which
nonattainment areas must attain the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA
designated 52 areas throughout the
country, including Imperial County,
California, nonattainment for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.7 In a separate action, the
EPA assigned classification thresholds
and attainment dates based on the
severity of each nonattainment area’s
ozone problem, determined by the area’s
design values and classified the
Imperial County nonattainment area as
Marginal.8 The EPA established the
attainment date for Marginal ozone
nonattainment areas as three years from
the effective date of the final
6 The data handling convention in 40 CFR 50,
appendix U dictates that concentrations shall be
reported in ‘‘ppm’’ to the third decimal place, with
additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus,
a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of
0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and would
exceed the standard, but a design value of 0.0709
is truncated to 0.070 and attains the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
7 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). The EPA later
designated the San Antonio area as a 2015 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area effective September 24,
2018. 83 FR 35136 (July 25, 2018).
8 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 2018), effective May 8,
2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
designations. Thus, the attainment date
for Marginal nonattainment areas for the
2015 ozone NAAQS was August 3,
2021.
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas
The list of applicable requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal includes a submission that
meets the baseline emissions inventory,
source emission statements, and
nonattainment new source review
program requirements. The California
Air Resources Board (CARB) has
provided submittals to the EPA for the
Imperial County nonattainment area
addressing these requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, and the EPA has
proposed to approve them.9
Transportation and general
conformity apply within the Imperial
County 2015 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area under section 176(c)
of the CAA and the federal regulations
for transportation conformity (40 CFR
93 subpart A) and general federal
actions (40 CFR 93 subpart B). This
action, if finalized, would not affect the
applicability of these regulations within
Imperial County.
As described in the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS Implementation Rule, section
182(a) of the CAA does not require
states to implement reasonably available
control measures (RACM) or reasonably
available control technology (RACT) in
Marginal ozone nonattainment areas,
and nothing in section 179B alters the
statutory requirements with respect to
RACM/RACT obligations in subpart 2.10
C. Requirement for Determination of
Attainment of the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires that within 6 months following
the applicable attainment date, the EPA
shall determine whether an ozone
nonattainment area attained the ozone
standard based on the area’s design
value as of that date. If the EPA
determines that an area failed to attain,
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the
area to be reclassified by operation of
law to the higher of: (1) the next higher
classification for the area, or (2) the
classification applicable to the area’s
design value as of the determination of
9 Our proposed approvals of the District’s
baseline emissions inventory, emissions statement
rule, and nonattainment new source review
certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are at 86
FR 54887 (October 5, 2021), 86 FR 70996 (December
14, 2021), and 87 FR 22163 (April 14, 2022),
respectively. We finalized our approval of the
emissions statement rule on July 29, 2022 (87 FR
45657).
10 83 FR 62998, 63010 (December 6, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50031
failure to attain.11 Section 181(b)(2)(B)
of the CAA requires the EPA to publish
the determination of failure to attain
and accompanying reclassification in
the Federal Register no later than 6
months after the attainment date, which
in the case of the Imperial County
nonattainment area, was February 3,
2022.
The EPA’s proposed determination
that Imperial County would have
attained the 2015 ozone standard but for
international emissions is based in part
upon data that have been collected and
quality-assured by CARB and the
Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA’s
Air Quality System (AQS) database.12
Ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 3-year period preceding the
attainment date (2018–2020 for the 2015
ozone NAAQS Marginal areas) must
meet the data completeness
requirements in Appendix U.13 The
completeness requirements are met for
the 3-year period at a monitoring site if
daily maximum 8-hour average
concentrations of ozone are available for
at least 90 percent of the days within the
ozone monitoring season, on average,
for the 3-year period, and no single year
has less than 75 percent data
completeness.
For areas such as Imperial County
classified as Marginal nonattainment for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the attainment
date was August 3, 2021.14 Because the
design value is based on the three most
recent, complete calendar years of data,
attainment must occur no later than
December 31st of the year prior to the
attainment date (i.e., December 31,
2020, in the case of Marginal
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS). Consequently, the EPA’s
proposed action for the Imperial County
11 If the EPA were to determine that the Imperial
County nonattainment area failed to attain by the
attainment date, it would be classified to the next
highest classification of Moderate. The reclassified
area would then be subject to the Moderate area
requirement to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than
August 3, 2024.
12 The EPA maintains the AQS, a database that
contains ambient air pollution data collected by the
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies. The AQS also contains meteorological
data, descriptive information about each monitoring
station (including its geographic location and its
operator) and data quality assurance/quality control
information. The AQS data are used to (1) assess air
quality, (2) assist in attainment/non-attainment
designations, (3) evaluate SIPs for non-attainment
areas, (4) perform modeling for permit review
analysis, and (5) prepare reports for Congress as
mandated by the CAA. Access is through the
website at https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
13 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, § 4(b).
14 The San Antonio, Texas area has an attainment
date of September 24, 2021.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
50032
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area is based upon the
complete, quality-assured, and certified
ozone monitoring data from calendar
years 2018, 2019, and 2020. The design
value for this period is 0.078 ppm,
indicating that the Imperial County
nonattainment area did not attain the
2015 ozone NAAQS by its August 3,
2021 attainment date.15
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. International Transport and
Requirements for Clean Air Act Section
179B
CAA section 179B(b) provides that
where a state demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that an
ozone nonattainment area would have
attained the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date but for emissions
emanating from outside the United
States (U.S.), that area shall not be
subject to the mandatory reclassification
provision of CAA section 181(b)(2).16 In
the event an air agency does not
demonstrate to the EPA’s satisfaction
that it would have attained the NAAQS
but for international emissions, it will
be reclassified to the next higher
classification.
Anthropogenic emissions sources
outside of the U.S. can affect to varying
degrees the ability of some air agencies
to attain and maintain the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in areas within their
jurisdiction. In a nonattainment area
affected by international emissions, an
air agency may elect under CAA section
179B to develop and submit to the EPA
a demonstration intended to show that
a nonattainment area would attain, or
would have attained, the relevant
NAAQS by the applicable statutory
attainment date ‘‘but for’’ emissions
emanating from outside the U.S.17
Under CAA section 179B, the EPA
evaluates such demonstrations, and if it
agrees with the air agency’s
demonstration, the EPA considers the
impacts of international emissions in
taking specific regulatory actions.
CAA section 179B provides the EPA
with authority to consider impacts from
international emissions in two contexts:
(1) a ‘‘prospective’’ state demonstration
submitted as part of an attainment plan,
15 ‘‘EPA Evaluation of the Clean Air Act Section
179B(b) Demonstration for the Imperial County
Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’ available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
16 Note that the statute cites 42 U.S.C. 7511(a)(2),
but that provision establishes ozone attainment
deadlines for severe areas under the 1-hour
standard. The EPA has long interpreted the citation
in CAA section 179B(b) to be a scrivener’s error that
was supposed to refer to 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2),
which refers to consequences for failure to attain by
the attainment date.
17 All references to CAA section 179B are to 42
U.S.C. 7509a. International border areas, as added
Public Law 101–549, title VIII, § 818, 104 Stat. 2697
(November 15, 1990).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
which the EPA considers when
determining whether the SIP adequately
demonstrates that a nonattainment area
will attain the NAAQS by its future
attainment date (CAA section 179B(a));
or (2) a ‘‘retrospective’’ state
demonstration, which the EPA
considers after the attainment date in
determining whether a nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS by the
attainment date (CAA section 179B(b)–
(d)).
First, CAA section 179B(a) provides
that, ‘‘[N]otwithstanding any other
provision of law, an implementation
plan or plan revision required under
this chapter shall be approved by the
Administrator if (1) such plan or
revision meets all the requirements
applicable to it . . . other than a
requirement that such plan or revision
demonstrate attainment and
maintenance of the relevant national
ambient air quality standards by the
attainment date specified under the
applicable provision of this chapter, or
in a regulation promulgated under such
provision, and (2) the submitting state
establishes to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the implementation
plan of such state would be adequate to
attain and maintain the relevant
national ambient air quality standards
by the attainment date . . . but for
emissions emanating from outside of the
United States,’’ (emphasis added). The
EPA refers to CAA section 179B(a)
demonstrations as ‘‘prospective’’
demonstrations because they are
intended to assess future air quality,
taking into consideration the impact of
international emissions. Thus, if the
EPA approves a prospective
demonstration, the state is relieved from
the requirement to demonstrate that the
nonattainment area will attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.18
Second, CAA section 179B(b)
provides that, for ozone nonattainment
areas, ‘‘[n]otwithstanding any other
provision of law, any State that
establishes to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that . . . such State
would have attained the national
ambient air quality standard . . . by the
applicable attainment date but for
emissions emanating from outside of the
18 Section 182(a) of the CAA, which describes
nonattainment area requirements for ozone
Marginal areas, states that the requirements of
section 182(a) ‘‘shall apply in lieu of any
requirement that the State submit a demonstration
that the applicable implementation plan provides
for attainment of the ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date in any Marginal Area.’’
In other words, there is no prospective relief that
can be granted by the EPA under section 179B(a)
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
United States,’’ (emphasis added) shall
not be subject to reclassification to a
higher classification category by
operation of law, as otherwise required
in CAA section 181(b)(2).19 The EPA
refers to demonstrations developed
under CAA section 179B(b) as
‘‘retrospective’’ demonstrations because
they involve analyses of past air quality
(e.g., air quality data from the
yearsevaluated for determining whether
an area attained by the attainment date).
Thus, an EPA-approved retrospective
demonstration provides relief from
reclassification that would have resulted
from the EPA determining that the area
failed to attain the NAAQS by the
relevant attainment date.
Irrespective of whether developing
and submitting a prospective or
retrospective demonstration, states still
must meet all nonattainment area
requirements applicable for the relevant
NAAQS and area classification. The
2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation
Rule did not include regulatory
requirements specific to CAA section
179B but did provide guidance on
certain points. In the preamble to the
rule, the EPA confirmed that: (1) only
areas classified Moderate and higher
must show that they have implemented
reasonably available control measures
and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT); (2) CAA
section 179B demonstrations are not
geographically limited to nonattainment
areas adjoining an international border;
and, (3) a state demonstration prepared
under CAA section 179B can consider
emissions emanating from sources in
North America (i.e., Canada or Mexico)
or sources on other continents.20 In the
preamble to that rule, the EPA
encouraged air agencies to consult with
the appropriate EPA regional office to
determine technical requirements for
the CAA section 179B demonstrations.
In addition, the EPA noted its
development of supplementary
technical information and guidance to
assist air agencies in preparing
demonstrations that meet the
requirements of CAA section 179B.
The EPA issued more detailed
guidance regarding CAA section 179B
on December 18, 2020, that includes
recommendations to assist state, local,
and tribal air agencies that intend to
19 The EPA’s longstanding view is that CAA
section 179B(b) contains an erroneous reference to
section 181(a)(2), and that Congress actually
intended to refer here to section 181(b)(2), which
addresses reclassification requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. See ‘‘State Implementation
Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’
57 FR 13498, 13569, footnote 41 (April 16, 1992).
20 83 FR 62998, 63009.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
develop a CAA section 179B
demonstration (‘‘179B Guidance’’).21
The 179B Guidance describes and
provides examples of the kinds of
information and analyses that the EPA
recommends air agencies consider for
inclusion in a CAA section 179B
demonstration.
In the 179B Guidance, the EPA
confirmed that while approval of a CAA
section 179B demonstration provides
specific forms of regulatory relief for air
agencies, the EPA’s approval does not
relieve air agencies from obligations to
meet the remaining applicable planning
or emission reduction requirements in
the CAA. It also does not provide a basis
either for excluding air monitoring data
influenced by international transport
from regulatory determinations related
to attainment and nonattainment, or for
redesignating an area to attainment. If
an air agency is contemplating a CAA
section 179B demonstration in either
the CAA section 179B(a) ‘‘prospective’’
context or the CAA section 179B(b)
‘‘retrospective’’ context, the EPA
encourages communication throughout
the demonstration development and
submission process, along the lines of
these basic steps: (1) the air agency
contacts its EPA Regional office to
discuss CAA section 179B regulatory
interests and conceptual model; (2) the
air agency begins gathering information
and developing analyses for a
demonstration; (3) the air agency
submits a draft CAA section 179B
demonstration to its EPA Regional office
for review and discussion; and (4) the
air agency submits its final CAA section
179B demonstration to the EPA. After
that process is complete, the EPA makes
a determination as to the sufficiency of
the demonstration after a public notice
and comment process. The EPA may act
on a prospective demonstration when
taking action on an area’s attainment
plan. For a retrospective demonstration,
the EPA may determine its adequacy
when taking action to determine
whether the area attained by the
attainment date and is subject to
reclassification.
The EPA’s consideration of the CAA
section 179B demonstrations submitted
by states in connection with
reclassification of ozone nonattainment
areas is governed by CAA section
21 ‘‘Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act
Section 179B Demonstrations for Nonattainment
Areas Affected by International Transport of
Emissions’’ issued on December 18, 2020; available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/
documents/final_caa_179b_guidance_december_
2020_with_disclaimer_ogc.pdf. The EPA also issued
a notice of availability in the Federal Register on
January 7, 2021 (86 FR 1107).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
179B(b).22 Pursuant to that provision,
the state must establish ‘‘to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that,
with respect to [the relevant] ozone
nonattainment area in such State, such
State would have attained the [2015
ozone NAAQS] by the applicable
attainment date, but for emissions
emanating from outside of the United
States . . .’’ Because the wording in
CAA section 179B(b) is in the past
tense, it is reasonable for the EPA to
conclude that such demonstrations
should be retrospective in nature. In
other words, the demonstration should
include analyses showing that the air
quality data on specific days in the time
period used to assess attainment were
affected by international emissions to an
extent that prevented the area from
attaining the standard by the attainment
date.23 By definition, states can only
make such a demonstration after air
quality data collected pursuant to
federal reference or equivalent
monitoring methods are certified and
indicate that the area failed to attain by
the attainment date. Where the EPA
approves a state’s CAA section 179B(b)
retrospective demonstration, the area
retains its nonattainment designation
and is still subject to all applicable
requirements for the area’s current
classification, but is not subject to the
applicable requirements for any higher
classification.24 25
The CAA does not specify what
technical analyses would be sufficient
to demonstrate ‘‘to the satisfaction of the
Administrator’’ that a ‘‘State would have
attained the [NAAQS for the pollutant
in question] by the applicable
attainment date, but for’’ international
emissions. The EPA recognizes that the
relationship between certain NAAQS
exceedances and associated
international transport is clearer in
some cases than in others. The
following characteristics would suggest
22 The regulatory relief a state would receive from
a satisfactory prospective CAA section 179B(a)
demonstration is limited to approval of an
attainment plan that does not demonstrate
attainment and maintenance of the relevant
NAAQS, but meets all other applicable
requirements. CAA section 179B(a) is not germane
to this proposal.
23 179B Guidance, 15–16.
24 Id. at 3.
25 As we noted in our 179B Guidance, an air
agency with a Marginal ozone nonattainment area
that is affected by international emissions may wish
to evaluate whether implementing emission
reduction measures on domestic sources in the
nonattainment area can bring the area into
attainment because, until the area attains the
NAAQS and the EPA approves an air agency
submission addressing the redesignation criteria of
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), the area will continue to
be subject to nonattainment area requirements,
including nonattainment new source review. Id. at
17.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50033
the need for a more detailed
demonstration with additional
evidence: (1) affected monitors are not
located near an international border; (2)
specific international sources and/or
their contributing emissions are not
identified or are difficult to identify; (3)
exceedances on internationally
influenced days are in the range of
typical exceedances attributable to local
sources; and (4) exceedances occurred
in association with other processes and
sources of pollutants, or on days where
meteorological conditions were
conducive to local pollutant formation
(e.g., for ozone, clear skies and elevated
temperatures). Therefore, CAA section
179B demonstrations for non-border
areas may involve additional technical
rigor, analyses and resources compared
to demonstrations for border areas.
Given the extensive number of
technical factors and meteorological
conditions that can affect international
transport of air pollution, and the lack
of specific guidance in the Act, the EPA
evaluates CAA section 179B
demonstrations based on the weight of
evidence of all information and analyses
provided by the air agency. The
appropriate level of supporting
documentation will vary on a case-bycase basis depending on the nature and
severity of international influence, as
well as the factors identified above. The
EPA considers and qualitatively weighs
all evidence based on its relevance to
CAA section 179B and the nature of
international contributions as described
in the demonstration’s conceptual
model. Every demonstration should
include fact-specific analyses tailored to
the nonattainment area in question.
When a CAA section 179B
demonstration shows that international
contributions are larger than domestic
contributions, the weight of evidence
will be more compelling than if the
demonstration shows domestic
contributions exceeding international
contributions. In contrast, when a CAA
section 179B demonstration shows that
international emissions have a lower
contribution to ozone concentrations
than domestic emissions, and/or
international transport is not
significantly different on local
exceedance days compared to nonexceedance days, then the weight of
evidence will not be supportive of a
conclusion that a nonattainment area
would attain or would have attained the
relevant NAAQS by the statutory
attainment date ‘‘but for’’ emissions
emanating from outside the U.S.
In evaluating a CAA section 179B
demonstration the EPA also considers
what measures an air agency has
implemented to control local emissions.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
50034
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
At a minimum, states are still subject to
all requirements applicable to the area
based on its nonattainment
classification. For the EPA to concur
with a state’s CAA section 179B
retrospective demonstration, the weight
of evidence should show the area could
not attain with on-the-books measures
and and potential reductions associated
with controls required for that particular
NAAQS that are to be implemented by
the attainment date. Because CAA
section 179B does not relieve an air
agency of its planning or control
obligations, the air agency should show
that it has implemented all required
emissions controls at the local level as
part of its demonstration.
II. Imperial County Ozone
Determination of Attainment but for
International Emissions
A. Imperial County Ozone
Nonattainment Area
The Imperial County nonattainment
area for the 2015 ozone standard
includes the whole County, including
lands of the Quechan Tribe of the Fort
Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians within
the geographic boundary of Imperial
County.26 The County encompasses
over 4,000 square miles in southeastern
California. Its population is estimated to
be approximately 180,000 people,27 and
its principal industries are farming and
retail trade. It is bordered by Riverside
County to the north, Arizona to the east,
Mexico to the south, and San Diego
County to the west. The Imperial Valley
runs north-south through the central
part of the County and includes the
County’s three most populated cities:
Brawley, El Centro, and Calexico. Most
of the County’s population and
industries exist within this relatively
narrow land area that extends about
one-fourth the width of the County. The
rest of Imperial County is primarily
desert, with little or no human
population.28
B. Ozone Monitoring Sites in Imperial
County
There are currently four ozone
monitoring sites in Imperial County.
Listed from south to north, the Imperial
ozone monitoring sites are: CalexicoEthel Street, El Centro-9th Street,
Westmorland, and Niland.29 The
maximum 2020 design value for the
County, based on certified monitoring
data at the monitor located closest to the
Mexico border (the Calexico-Ethel Street
monitor), was 0.078 ppm. CalexicoEthel Street is the only ozone monitor
in Imperial County violating the 2015
ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. The 2020
design value for the El Centro-9th Street
monitor was 0.068 ppm, i.e., attaining
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The design
values for monitors farther from the
border, Westmorland (0.058 ppm) and
Niland (0.049 ppm), are invalid due to
less than 90 percent data completeness
for the three-year period and less than
75 percent completeness in calendar
year 2020.30
Tables 1 and 2 of this document list
the 2016–2020 annual fourth highest
daily maximum 8-hour average (‘‘4th
max’’) and design values at the Imperial
County ozone monitors. The CalexicoEthel Street monitor, which is one mile
from the border, consistently measures
the highest 4th max concentration in
each year; concentrations decrease as
each monitor’s distance from the border
increases. The 2019 design value, which
is valid for all four sites, shows a similar
relationship between concentration and
distance from the border: 0.079 ppm at
Calexico-Ethel Street, 0.072 ppm at El
Centro-9th Street (9 miles from border),
0.061 ppm at Westmorland (26 miles
from border), and 0.054 ppm at Niland
(38 miles from border).
The Niland monitor design value has
been consistently below 0.070 ppm
since 2016. In addition, the valid design
values and complete yearly 4th maxes at
Niland have been consistently lower
than the El Centro-9th Street and
Calexico-Ethel Street monitors in the
past five years. The Westmorland
monitor started operation in July 2015;
the only valid Westmorland monitor
design value, in 2019, was 0.061 ppm,
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070
ppm. In addition, the complete yearly
4th maxes at Westmorland have been
consistently lower than the El Centro9th Street and Calexico-Ethel Street
monitors in the past five years.
TABLE 1—2015 OZONE NAAQS: 2016–2020 YEARLY 4TH MAX IMPERIAL COUNTY OZONE MONITORS
Site name
AQS site ID
Calexico-Ethel Street ...
El Centro-9th Street .....
Westmorland ................
Niland ...........................
Distance from
border
(miles)
06–025–0005
06–025–1003
06–025–4003
06–025–4004
1
9
26
38
4th max (ppm)
2016
2017
0.074
a 0.074
0.063
0.062
2018
0.082
0.079
0.063
0.057
2019
0.076
0.075
0.061
0.051
0.080
0.062
0.059
0.054
2020
0.080
0.069
a 0.054
a 0.043
Source: Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report (AMP480), pulled December 3, 2021.
a Incomplete; did not meet completeness threshold of 75% for an individual year.
TABLE 2—2015 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES IMPERIAL COUNTY OZONE MONITORS
Design value (ppm)
Site name
AQS site ID
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2016
Calexico-Ethel Street ...............................
El Centro-9th Street .................................
Westmorland ............................................
26 40
06–025–0005
06–025–1003
06–025–4003
CFR 81.305.
Census Bureau, Population Estimates, July
1 2021, (V2021), https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/imperialcountycalifornia, accessed April
6, 2021.
28 Maps showing stationary NO and VOC
X
emission sources, vehicle traffic, and population
density in Imperial County are included as Figures
27 U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
2017
0.076
0.076
a 0.060
0.077
0.076
a 0.061
A–1–A–3 in the EPA’s technical support document,
which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
29 A map showing the ozone monitoring sites in
Imperial County is included as Figure 4 in the
EPA’s technical support document, which is
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
30 We note that the 2020 design values at
Westmorland of 58 ppb and at Niland of 49 ppb are
invalid because the average data completeness of 84
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018
2019
0.077
0.076
a 0.062
0.079
0.072
0.061
2020
0.078
0.068
a 0.058
percent and 86 percent for the 2018–2020 period
and 72 percent and 67 percent in 2020,
respectively. These percentages are below the
minimum completeness thresholds of 90 percent for
the three-year period and 75 percent for an
individual year, respectively. Air Quality System
(AQS) Design Value Report (AMP480), pulled
December 3, 2021, and 40 CFR part 50, App. U,
section 4(b).
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
50035
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—2015 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES IMPERIAL COUNTY OZONE MONITORS—Continued
Design value (ppm)
Site name
AQS site ID
2016
Niland .......................................................
06–025–4004
2017
0.067
2018
0.063
2019
0.056
2020
a 0.049
0.054
Source:AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), pulled December 3, 2021.
a Invalid because data are incomplete (did not meet minimum completeness thresholds of 90% for the three-year period).
C. Summary of the State’s Submission
On August 16, 2021, CARB submitted
to the EPA for review its ‘‘Imperial
County Clean Air Act Section 179B(b)
Analysis for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone
Standard’’ (‘‘Demonstration’’). CARB
submitted additional information on
November 24, 2021. Using several lines
of evidence, CARB evaluated whether,
and the extent to which, ambient ozone
levels in Imperial County would be
affected by emissions emanating from
northern Mexico. This evaluation
includes a conceptual model of ozone
formation in Imperial County including
a discussion of the meteorological and
topographic conditions that influence
ozone formation; an analysis of the
ozone design value trends in the County
from 2000 to 2020; an emissions
inventory analysis comparing ozone
precursor emissions in Imperial County,
California to those in the Mexicali
Municipality in Mexico; an ambient
observational analysis of backtrajectories examining whether there is
an internationally influenced sourcereceptor relationship on ozone
exceedance days in Imperial County;
and a photochemical air quality
modeling exercise estimating the
contribution of cross-border, northern
Mexico emissions to ozone design
values in Imperial County.
1. Conceptual Model
CARB provided a conceptual model
describing ozone formation in the
Imperial County ozone nonattainment
area, which is located on the border of
the United States and Mexico and
encompasses all of Imperial County.
Imperial County includes the northern
portion of the Imperial Valley, which
extends from the southern end of the
Salton Sea southward into Mexico,
where it becomes known as the Mexicali
Valley. The valleys are bordered by
mountains to the west and east, and on
the south side by mountains south of
the border to the southwest of Mexicali.
These ranges channel airflow within the
Imperial and Mexicali Valleys, without
topographic features between, creating a
shared binational air shed for the region.
Imperial County experiences hot, dry
weather and stagnation in the summer,
which are conducive to ozone
formation. Highest ozone concentrations
are experienced between May through
September and generally peak in the
late afternoon. Ozone and ozone
precursors are often transported to
Imperial County by prevailing winds
from Mexicali to the south, and to a
lesser extent from other surrounding air
basins.31
CARB provided trends in the ozone
design values for the Calexico-Ethel
Street, El Centro-9th Street, and Niland
monitors, number of days with
maximum daily 8-hour ozone values
greater than 70 ppb within the
nonattainment area, and Imperial
County ozone precursor emissions from
2000–2020.32 The County’s maximum
ozone design value across all monitors
has decreased over the past two
decades, along with a 60 percent
reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and a 45% reduction in anthropogenic
VOC emissions within Imperial County
over that period.33 The Calexico
monitor’s design value trend, however,
has been relatively flat when compared
to the downward trend at the Niland
and, more recently, at the El Centro
monitors, which are farther from the
border. From 2003 through 2015, El
Centro had the highest design value of
the three monitors for all design value
periods except for two: Calexico and El
Centro had the same design value in
2016, and from 2017–2020 Calexico had
the highest design value.
2. Emissions Analysis for Imperial
County and the Mexicali Municipality
CARB provided a table of 2018 ozone
precursor emissions, shown in Table 3
of this document.34 The emissions of
both NOX and VOC in the Mexicali
Municipality are approximately four
times larger than Imperial County
emissions. These emissions do not
include emissions originating in other
parts of Mexico or elsewhere that could
also affect ozone levels in Imperial
County. CARB notes that while
domestic emissions have decreased, the
Mexicali emissions have increased.
CARB also notes that the population of
Mexicali Municipality grew from
around 600,000 in the early 1990s to
over 1.1 million in 2019 and that it has
become an economic center for the
region with a corresponding increase in
emissions for the area.
TABLE 3—CARB’S 2018 IMPERIAL COUNTY AND MEXICALI MUNICIPALITY EMISSIONS INVENTORY
[tons per day (tpd), summer planning inventory] a
Imperial county
Source
NOX
(tpd)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Stationary ..........................................................
Area-wide ..........................................................
31 Demonstration,
1.4
0.2
2–5.
at 4–6. CARB often states ozone
concentrations in units of parts per billion (ppb).
The form of the NAAQS in 40 CFR 50.15 is in ppm
(parts per million). To convert from ppm to ppb,
multiply ppm by 1000. Thus, e.g., 0.070 ppm
becomes 70 ppb. While those values are
numerically equal, for comparison of
concentrations to the NAAQS care must be used in
applying the data handling requirements of 40 CFR
32 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
NOX
(%)
City of Mexicali
VOC
(tpd)
9
1
VOC
(%)
1.3
6.6
NOX
(tpd)
10
49
50, appendix P, e.g., truncation after the third digit
of a ppm value is equivalent to dropping digits after
the decimal point in a ppb value.
33 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 document, we use the term VOC
to refer to this set of gases.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
(%)
3.3
1.0
VOC
(tpd)
5
1
12.8
29.6
VOC
(%)
21
50
34 CARB’s Demonstration, Appendix A, 17–19
describes the emissions used in the photochemical
modeling exercise and summarized in Table 3 of
this document. Updated Mexico emissions were
developed as part of a project prepared for CARB
by the Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). ERG,
Final Report, ‘‘2014 Northern Baja California
Emissions Inventory Project,’’ September 30, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
50036
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—CARB’S 2018 IMPERIAL COUNTY AND MEXICALI MUNICIPALITY EMISSIONS INVENTORY—Continued
[tons per day (tpd), summer planning inventory] a
Imperial county
Source
NOX
(%)
NOX
(tpd)
City of Mexicali
VOC
(tpd)
VOC
(%)
VOC
(tpd)
NOX
(%)
NOX
(tpd)
VOC
(%)
Off-Road Mobile ................................................
On-Road Mobile ................................................
8.8
5.6
55
35
3.0
2.5
22
19
8.0
54.4
12
82
0.8
16.4
1
28
Total ...........................................................
16.0
100
13.5
100
66.6
100
59.6
100
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Source: The EPA calculated percentages using information from Demonstration, Appendix A, Table 3, 19.
a CARB modeled April–October and refers to this period as the ‘‘modeled ozone season’’ and the emission inventory used as the ‘‘summer planning inventory’’. For
calendar years 2018–2020 all max daily 8-hour ozone values above 70 ppb at Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street occurred between April–September.
These months represent peak ozone for the area.
3. Ambient Observational Analysis—
Back Trajectories
CARB’s Demonstration includes an
analysis of back trajectories created
using the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian
Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT)
model.35 The analysis includes
trajectories for each exceedance day in
2018, 2019, and 2020 (when the daily
maximum eight-hour average ozone
level was above 70 ppb) at the two
Imperial County monitors with the
highest 2020 design values, CalexicoEthel Street (42 exceedance days) and El
Centro-9th Street (17 exceedance days).
CARB identified the hours contributing
to the daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone value for each exceedance day
and then used HYSPLIT to generate 8hour back-trajectories for each of the
eight hours that contributed to the
maximum 8-hour average ozone value
for each exceedance day at each
monitor. CARB generated backtrajectories for three starting altitudes
(100, 500, and 1000 meters (m)) at each
monitor using meteorological data from
the North American Mesoscale Forecast
System (NAM) 12 kilometer (km)
pressure coordinate system dataset.
CARB’s analysis flagged an
exceedance day as having likely
influence from emissions emanating
from Mexico if the majority of backtrajectories (at least five out of eight) for
that day originated from or passed over
Mexico. CARB then removed those
flagged days and recalculated the 2020
design values for the Calexico-Ethel
Street and El Centro-9th Street monitors.
Using this analysis, CARB asserts that
when days with likely influence from
emissions emanating from Mexico are
excluded based on the HYSPLIT
analysis, the estimated design values for
the monitors would meet the 0.070 ppm
(70 ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.
35 Demonstration, Appendix B. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s Hybrid Single
Particle Lagrangian Integrated Model (HYSPLIT),
https://www.ready.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
4. Modeling To Quantify International
Contribution—CARB Photochemical
Modeling
Appendix A to CARB’s Demonstration
describes CARB’s photochemical
modeling. CARB simulated conditions
between April 2018 and October 2018
using the Community Multiscale Air
Quality model (CMAQ) driven by
meteorological fields from the Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF)
prognostic model.36 The overall CMAQ
air quality modeling domain covers the
entire State of California, and has a
horizontal grid size resolution of 12
kilometer (km) with 107 x 97 lateral grid
cells for each vertical layer. It extends
from the Pacific Ocean in the west to
eastern Nevada in the east, and from the
northern Mexico in the south to the
California-Oregon border in the north.
The smaller nested domain used to
model the Imperial County
nonattainment area covers southern
California (including the South Coast,
San Diego, and Salton Sea air basins)
and northern Mexico, has a finer scale
4 km grid resolution, and includes 156
x 102 lateral grid cells.
CARB included a performance
analysis for the meteorological model
(WRF) and the ozone model (CMAQ)
simulations including statistics
recommended in the EPA’s ‘‘Modeling
Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional
Haze,’’ (‘‘Modeling Guidance’’).37 CARB
validated the WRF-simulated surface
wind speed, temperature, and relative
humidity from the 4 km domain against
hourly observations at 13 surface
stations in Imperial County and
included detailed hourly time-series
together with spatial distributions of the
mean bias and mean error.38 CARB also
36 CMAQ model version 5.3.2, released by the
EPA in October 2020. Further information on
CMAQ is available at: https://www.cmascenter.org/
cmaq/. WRF model version 4.2.1. Further
information on WRF is available at https://
www.mmm.ucar.edu/weather-research-andforecasting-model.
37 EPA 454/R–18–009, November 2018.
38 Demonstration, 24–27 and 46–58.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
included a phenomenological analysis
showing the model captures the general
meteorological patterns affecting the
region on exceedance days.39
CARB provided an operational
evaluation of the ozone model
performance including tables of
statistics for elevated ozone periods
(greater than 60 ppb) as recommended
in the Modeling Guidance for 1-hour
ozone, daily maximum 1-hour ozone,
and daily maximum 8-hour modeled
ozone compared to observations at the
Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th
Street ozone monitoring locations.40
CARB also provided scatter plots, time
series and additional performance
statistics and compared these results to
those from similar studies in other
areas.41
After confirming the model
performance for the 2018 base case
using 2018 anthropogenic emissions for
both the U.S. and Mexico, CARB
performed a ‘‘brute-force’’ or ‘‘zero-out’’
sensitivity case. The only difference
from the base case is that anthropogenic,
near-source northern Mexico emissions
(those within the CMAQ 4 and 12 km
modeling domains 42) were excluded
from the simulation. CARB then used
the modeled zero-out and base case
results to apply a pseudo-Relative
Reduction Factor (RRF) to observations
and to predict the contribution of nearsource northern Mexico emissions to the
average of Imperial County 2018, 2019,
and 2020 ozone design values.43 Here,
the RRF represents the fractional change
39 Id.
at 28–32.
at 34–36.
41 Id. at 37–39 and 59–64.
42 See Demonstration, Appendix A, Figure 6 and
email dated March 3, 2022, from Chenxia Cai
(CARB) to Rynda Kay (EPA), Subject: ‘‘RE: Imperial
179B(b) demo: quick clarification question on
model set-up.’’
43 The Modeling Guidance recommends using
three 3-year design value periods when doing an
attainment test as part of a SIP demonstration for
ozone in order to account for meteorological
variability. CARB applied this approach to its
179B(b) modeling demonstration and calculated
design values for the 3 three-year periods ending in
2018, 2019, and 2020 and then averaged them.
40 Id.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
in modeled peak ozone between the
base and zero-out simulations. The
Modeling Guidance recommends
calculating an RRF based on the highest
10 modeled days in the simulated
period (at each monitoring site). CARB
used the top 10 days from the base case
simulation and then the same
corresponding days from the zero-out
simulation. These values are based on
the maximum simulated ozone within a
3x3 array of grid cells surrounding the
grid cell in which the monitor is
located. The predicted design values
were then calculated by multiplying the
average of Imperial County 2018, 2019,
and 2020 design values by the pseudoRRFs. The change in design value
represents the contribution of nearsource, northern Mexico emissions to
the design value.
As shown in Table 4 of this
document, with the removal of
anthropogenic northern Mexico
emissions in the 4 km and 12 km
modeling domains, the average of the
2018–2020 design values for CalexicoEthel Street is predicted to be reduced
from 78.0 to 69.2 ppb, and for El Centro9th Street is reduced from 72.0 to 61.3
ppb. These calculations indicate that
50037
emissions from northern Mexico
contribute approximately 9 ppb to the
design value at the Calexico-Ethel Street
monitor and approximately 11 ppb to
the design value at the El Centro-9th
Street monitor. The contribution from
the rest of Mexico and other
international sources outside of the
modeling domain were not removed.
Had the contribution from the rest of
Mexico and other international sources
also been removed, the modeling would
have predicted a larger contribution to
the design values from international
emissions.
TABLE 4—CARB’S AVERAGE 2018–2020 DESIGN VALUES ESTIMATES BASED ON SCALING EXERCISE FROM CARB
MODELING
Monitoring site
Measured
average 2018–
2020 design
values
(DVB, ppb)
Estimated DVB
without
anthropogenic
northern
Mexico
emissions
(ppb)
78.0
72.0
69.2
61.3
Calexico-Ethel ..................................................................................................
El Centro-9th ....................................................................................................
Approximate
northern
Mexico
contribution
to DVB
(ppb)
8.8
10.7
Change in
design value
(percent)
11.3
14.9
Source: Demonstration, 9. Note that the Demonstration refers to emissions from ‘‘Mexico’’ but only emissions from northern Mexico (those
within the 4 and 12 km modeling domains) were excluded.
Note: ‘‘Measured Average 2018–2020 Design Values’’ above takes the 2018, 2019, and 2020 design value for the individual site and averages
the three design values together to arrive at the value listed.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. EPA Review of the State’s Submission
As part of meeting its duty to
determine whether the Imperial County
area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, the EPA
evaluated air quality monitoring data
submitted by CARB to determine the
attainment status of the Imperial County
nonattainment area as of its Marginal
area attainment date. The Agency has
also evaluated the State’s 179B(b)
demonstration that the Imperial County
nonattainment area would have attained
the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date, but for international
emissions. Based on our review, the
EPA is proposing to approve the CAA
section 179B(b) demonstration. The EPA
is proposing this action to fulfill its
statutory obligation under CAA section
181(b)(2) to determine whether the
Imperial County nonattainment area
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of
the attainment date of August 3, 2021.
Our rationale supporting the proposed
approval of the State’s 179B(b)
demonstration and determination is
summarized below. The full rationale is
included in the technical support
document provided in the docket for
this rulemaking.
CARB’s retrospective 179B(b)
demonstration includes multiple lines
of evidence consistent with the key
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
types of analyses recommended in our
179B Guidance.44 These analyses
appropriately focus on 2018, 2019, and
2020, which are the key years for
demonstrating attainment for a Marginal
area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We
agree that each line of evidence
supports the conclusion that the 2020
ozone design values at all monitoring
sites in Imperial County would be at or
below 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) but for the
influence of Mexican emissions. CARB’s
analyses focus on the influence from
near-source northern Mexico
contribution; the EPA notes that this is
a narrow, conservative approach to
analyzing ‘‘international contribution.’’
Even with this approach, we find that
these analyses support this conclusion.
Based on the evaluation of these
analyses as a whole, the EPA agrees that
Imperial County would have attained
the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August
3, 2021 attainment date but for
emissions emanating from Mexico.
CARB provided a conceptual model
describing the meteorology and
topography of the area, an evaluation of
ozone precursor emissions, and an
analysis of ozone trends at County
monitors. We agree that the following
factors support the proposition that the
Mexicali Municipality emissions likely
44 179B
PO 00000
Guidance, Section 6.
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have a substantial influence on Imperial
County ozone levels, particularly at the
Calexico-Ethel monitor, which remains
the only monitor with a violating 2020
design value: the topography and
meteorology of the Imperial and
Mexicali areas results in a single, shared
binational airshed; Mexicali
Municipality ozone precursor emissions
are much larger (currently
approximately four times greater) than
Imperial County emissions; ozone
concentration trends over time show
that monitors farther from the border
have experienced decreasing
concentrations, while at the CalexicoEthel monitor concentrations have
remained flat; and spatially, ozone
concentrations decrease with increasing
distance from the border.
CARB ran the HYSPLIT model to
generate 8-hour back-trajectories for
each of the eight hours contributing to
each 2018–2020 daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone exceedance (greater than
70 ppb) at the Calexico-Ethel and El
Centro-9th Street monitors at three
altitudes (100 m, 500 m, 1000 m). CARB
flagged days that had at least 5 of the 8
hours originating from or traversing
through Mexico as having likely
influence from emissions emanating
from Mexico. The 179B Guidance
recommends a slightly more stringent
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50038
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
test for identifying days influenced by
international emissions using a
threshold of 75 percent of trajectories
(e.g., 6 of 8 trajectories) as indicating
values that are likely influenced by
international emissions for a given
day.45 CARB notes that for more than 75
percent of flagged days, six or more of
the eight 8-hour back-trajectories
originated from or went through
Mexico, with most back-trajectories
passing over the city of Mexicali.46 The
EPA performed additional analysis and
found that 61–87 percent of the 8-hour
back trajectories (considering all three
starting altitudes of 100 m, 500 m, and
1000 m) passed over Mexico within the
8-hour period prior to arriving at the
monitoring site, with 55–80 percent
passing over the Mexicali Municipality.
The remaining trajectories, particularly
at lower elevations, generally come from
the northwest, following valley
topography, over the sparsely populated
Anza-Borrego desert region. We
conclude that the high percentage of 8hour back trajectories passing over
Mexicali supports the conclusion that
there is a direct international sourcereceptor relationship between the
Mexicali area and Imperial County on
2018–2020 exceedance days.
CARB also recalculated the 2020
design value excluding the days flagged
following the same methodology. The
EPA notes that flagged days on which
international emissions are likely to
have an impact might also be affected by
domestic emissions, and a simple backtrajectory analysis cannot distinguish
whether ozone levels on that day would
have exceeded the NAAQS without any
international contributions. Therefore, a
simple recalculation of the design value
excluding days with influence from
Mexico is not a conclusive ‘‘but for’’
analysis. However, the EPA agrees that
CARB’s 8-hour back trajectory analysis
shows that there is consistent, direct
transport from the high-emissions
Mexicali Municipality on high ozone
days to violating Imperial County
monitors. This direct transport, in
conjunction with the much larger
emissions magnitudes in Mexicali than
in Imperial County, supports an
international source-receptor
relationship between the Mexicali area
and Imperial County on exceedance
days.
CARB used CMAQ (version 5.3.2)
driven by WRF (version 4.2.1)
meteorological fields to conduct its
photochemical modeling analysis. The
EPA recognizes both CMAQ and WRF as
technically sound, state-of-the-science
45 179B
Guidance, 34.
11.
46 Demonstration,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
models applicable for use in regulatory
applications.47 We find that the areal
extent and the horizontal and vertical
resolution CARB used in these models
are appropriate for modeling Imperial
County ozone. The diurnal variation of
temperature, humidity and surface wind
are well represented by WRF and the
model captures the main meteorological
features contributing to high ozone in
Imperial County. We reviewed the
scatter plots, time series, and
performance statistics provided and
agree that, overall, the CMAQ modeling
performance is acceptable and compares
favorably to similar studies in other
areas.
As previously discussed, CARB used
the model results to estimate the impact
of cross-border, northern Mexico
emissions on air quality. The results of
this estimate were applied to the
average of the 2018, 2019, and 2020
ozone design values at Calexico-Ethel
Street and El Centro-9th Street (78 and
72 ppb, respectively) and indicate nearsource Mexico emissions contribute
approximately 9 ppb and 11 ppb to the
design values at Calexico-Ethel Street
and El Centro-9th Street, respectively.
The EPA notes that the analysis here
conservatively evaluates only crossborder emissions from northern Mexico,
and does not evaluate effects of
international emissions from other parts
of Mexico or elsewhere.
The EPA has performed additional
analysis of its 2020 Ozone Policy
Assessment (‘‘2020 PA’’) modeling 48 to
provide broad U.S. and international
source attribution for 2015 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment areas in the year
2016.49 The 2020 PA modeling predicts
that nationwide, average simulated
international anthropogenic ozone
contribution to the top 10 model days
over all nonattainment areas is 5.3 ± 4.9
ppb (mean ± standard deviation) and the
average U.S. anthropogenic ozone
contribution is 40.2 ± 13.5 ppb.50 This
47 Memorandum dated August 4, 2017, from Tyler
Fox, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Subject: ‘‘Use of Photochemical Grid
Models for Single-Source Ozone and Secondary
PM2.5 Impacts for Permit Program Related
Assessments and for NAAQS Attainment
Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional
Haze.’’
48 U.S. EPA. (2020). Policy Assessment for the
Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (No. EPA–452/R–20–001). Research
Triangle Park, NC: United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/
documents/o3-final_pa-05-29-20compressed.pdf.
49 Memorandum dated August 10, 2021, from
Barron Henderson and Heather Simon (EPA,
OAQPS), Subject: ‘‘Designated Area Source
Attribution Results Related to the National
Determination of Attainment by the Attainment
date (DAAD) Action.’’
50 The EPA modeling was done for the year 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
result shows that in most nonattainment
areas the U.S. anthropogenic
contribution is much larger than the
international anthropogenic
contribution.
The 2020 PA modeling predicts that
the international anthropogenic ozone
contribution to the top 10 model days
specifically for Imperial County is 31.8
ppb, the largest international
anthropogenic contribution of any
nonattainment area in the country. In
contrast to the modeling submitted by
CARB, which quantifies only the small
portion of the international contribution
that comes from near-source
anthropogenic emissions in northern
Mexico, the EPA’s modeling quantifies
impacts from all international
anthropogenic emissions sources. This
international anthropogenic
contribution is four times larger than the
U.S. anthropogenic contribution of 8.2
ppb on those days. The EPA also
provided contribution estimates to the
average of the 2018, 2019, and 2020
design values for Imperial County (78
ppb) and predicted that the
international anthropogenic
contribution to that value was 31.8 ppb
and U.S. anthropogenic contribution
was 8.2 ppb.51 The analyses are from
different years and different modeling
platforms, which complicates
conclusions from direct comparisons. In
addition, CARB did not specifically
split out the U.S. anthropogenic
contributions in their modeling. Even
so, we note that the U.S. anthropogenic
contribution of 8.2 ppb from the 2020
PA modeling is smaller than the 9–11
ppb estimated contribution from just
northern Mexico in CARB’s modeling
and is much smaller than the 31.8 ppb
from all international sources in the
EPA’s 2020 PA modeling. This
additional modeling indicates that
international anthropogenic emissions
contribute significantly to ozone in
Imperial County, and that emissions
from northern Mexico, while having a
substantial contribution, are only a
portion of the total contribution from all
international anthropogenic sources to
Imperial County ozone design values.
CARB and EPA analyses both support
the conclusion that Mexican
anthropogenic emissions substantially
51 In addition to the international anthropogenic
and U.S. anthropogenic contributions, natural
emissions were predicted to contribute 30.0 ppb.
Due to the non-linearity of ozone chemistry, some
portion of the ozone concentration in each area
cannot be attributed solely to U.S. anthropogenic or
international anthropogenic sources. Thus,
reducing this fraction of ozone (referred to as ‘‘Mix
Anth’’) requires reducing both U.S. anthropogenic
and international anthropogenic sources. The
predicted Mix Anth contribution to this value was
7.9 ppb.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
contribute to ozone exceedances in
Imperial County.
In conclusion, the EPA finds that
these multiple lines of evidence, taken
together, support the conclusion that
Imperial County would have attained
the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August
3, 2021 attainment date ‘‘but for’’
international emissions and support the
approval of CARB’s 179B(b)
demonstration.
III. Environmental Justice
Considerations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) requires that federal
agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law,
identify and address disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on
minority and low-income populations.
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86
FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directs
federal government agencies to assess
whether, and to what extent, their
programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and
benefits for people of color and other
underserved groups, and Executive
Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, February 1,
2021) directs federal agencies to develop
programs, policies, and activities to
address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate
impacts on disadvantaged communities.
To identify environmental burdens
and susceptible populations in
underserved communities in the
Imperial County nonattainment area and
to better understand the context of our
proposed approval of CARB’s 179B(b)
demonstration on these communities,
we conducted a screening-level analysis
using the EPA’s environmental justice
(EJ) screening and mapping tool
(‘‘EJSCREEN’’).52 Our screening-level
analysis indicates that communities
affected by this action score above the
national average for the EJSCREEN
‘‘Demographic Index,’’ which is the
average of an area’s percent minority
and percent low income populations,
i.e., the two demographic indicators
explicitly named in Executive Order
52 EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining environmental
and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available
at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. The
EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and
demographic indicators representing the City of
Calexico, which is located adjacent to the border
with Mexico and measures the highest levels of
ozone in the nonattainment area, and the central
portion of Imperial County, where the
overwhelming majority of the population resides.
These indicators are included in EJSCREEN reports
that are available in the rulemaking docket for this
action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
12898.53 These communities also score
above the national average for the
‘‘linguistically isolated population,’’ and
‘‘population with less than high school
education’’ indicators. Additionally,
these communities score above the
national average for numerous EJ Index
indicators, including the PM2.5 EJ index
and the respiratory hazard EJ Index. We
also looked at ozone design values for
the 2018–2020 period as an indicator of
potential ozone pollution exposure.54
Both the Calexico and the El Centro
monitors score above the national
average design value for this period.55
As discussed in the EPA’s EJ technical
guidance, people of color and lowincome populations, such as those in
Imperial County, often experience
greater exposure and disease burdens
than the general population, which can
increase their susceptibility to adverse
health effects from environmental
stressors.56 Underserved communities
may have a compromised ability to cope
with or recover from such exposures
due to a range of physical, chemical,
biological, social, and cultural factors.57
In addition to the demographic and
environmental indicators identified in
our screening level analysis, the
53 EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators
(e.g., air toxics cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and
traffic proximity and volume) and demographic
indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). The score for a
particular indicator measures how the community
of interest compares with the state, the EPA region,
or the national average. For example, if a given
location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this
means that only five percent of the US population
has a higher value than the average person in the
location being analzed. EJSCREEN also reports EJ
indexes, which are combinations of a single
environmental indicator with the EJSCREEN
Demographic Index. For additional information
about environmental and demographic indicators
and EJ indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA,
‘‘EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and
Screening Tool—EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,’’ section 2 (September 2019).
54 The ozone metric in EJSCREEN represents the
summer seasonal average of daily maximum 8-hour
concentrations (parts per billion, ppb) and was not
used in our EJ analyses because it does not
represent summertime peak ozone concentrations,
which are instead represented here by the design
value (DV) metric. Ozone DVs are the basis of the
attainment determination in this proposed action,
and in this case we consider it a more informative
indicator of pollution burden relative to the
Imperial nonattainment area and the U.S. as a
whole.
55 The 2020 ozone design value for the Calexico
monitor (0.078 ppm) is in the 94th percentile and
the El Centro monitor (0.068 ppm) is in the 73rd
percentile among 2020 ozone design values
nationally. The percentiles were calculated using
data available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2022-05/O3_DesignValues_2019_2021_
FINAL_05_25_22.xlsx, Table 6. Site Trend, column
T (‘‘2018–2020 Design Value (ppm)’’).
56 EPA, ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’
section 4 (June 2016).
57 Id. section 4.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50039
proximity of underserved communities
to the border with Mexico and the
resulting exposure to levels of ozone
that exceed the NAAQS contributes to
the potential EJ concerns faced by
communities in the Imperial
nonattainment area.
If finalized, this proposed action to
approve California’s demonstration that
the Imperial County ozone
nonattainment area would have attained
the standard by the statutory attainment
date, but for emissions emanating from
Mexico, would result in the area
retaining its Marginal classification. The
area will retain its designation as
nonattainment and continue to
implement nonattainment new source
review, but will not be reclassified as
‘‘Moderate’’ and the State will not be
required to submit a plan demonstrating
attainment or to adopt additional
control measures, consistent with CAA
section 179B(b).58 As a result, the EPA
will not be requiring the State to impose
additional control measures for
purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS that
could serve to reduce ozone exposure in
the area, even if they would not result
in actual attainment of the NAAQS due
to the influx of ozone and its precursors
from Mexico.
However, we note that the Imperial
County nonattainment area is also
designated nonattainment, and
classified as Moderate, for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Section 172(c)(1) of the
CAA requires states to implement
RACM/RACT level emission controls for
ozone nonattainment areas classified
Moderate and above. In 2020, the EPA
determined that California’s Moderate
area nonattainment plan for the Imperial
County nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS provides for the
implementation of all RACM as required
by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1112(c).59 Because California has
already implemented RACM/RACT
level controls for purposes of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the area, we think that
this will serve to limit potential impacts
from the EPA’s approval of the 179(B)(b)
demonstration for purposes of the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the EPA notes that there
are other efforts underway to reduce
environmental burden along the U.S.Mexico border, including Imperial
County. The United States and Mexico
58 In light of the overall health and clean air
objectives of the CAA, the EPA encourages the State
and District to continue to evaluate and, where
feasible, implement measures that would further
reduce emissions and contribute to improved air
quality in the Imperial nonattainment area.
59 85 FR 11817 (February 27, 2020), 85 FR 8181
(February 13, 2020), and 86 FR 49248 (September
2, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
50040
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
have long recognized the environmental
challenges in the border region and
share the goal of protecting the
environment and public health in the
U.S.-Mexico border region. The two
nations have been working together
outside the framework of the SIP
process to make progress towards those
goals.
The U.S.-Mexico Environmental
Program (‘‘Border 2025’’) is a five-year
(2021–2025) binational effort designed
‘‘to protect the environment and public
health in the U.S.-Mexico border region,
consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.’’ 60 Border
2025 is the latest of a series of
cooperative efforts implemented under
the 1983 La Paz Agreement. It builds on
previous binational efforts (i.e., the
Border 2012 and Border 2020
Environmental Programs), emphasizing
regional, bottom-up approaches for
decision making, priority setting, and
project implementation to address the
environmental and public health
problems in the border region. As in the
previous two border programs, Border
2025 encourages meaningful
participation from communities and
local stakeholders and establishes
guiding principles that will support the
mission statement, ensure consistency
among all aspects of the Border 2025
Program, and continue successful
elements of previous binational
environmental programs.
Border 2025 sets out four strategic
goals, including the reduction of air
pollution and the improvement of water
quality, to address environmental and
public health challenges in the border
region. Within the goals are specific
objectives that identify actions that will
be taken in support of the program’s
mission. The goals and objectives were
determined binationally between the
EPA and the Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources of Mexico
(SEMARNAT) to address ongoing
environmental challenges, and
considered input from state and tribal
partners. The ‘‘California-Baja California
2021–2023 Border 2025 Action Plan’’
lists and describes the projects that are
being undertaken to achieve the goals
and objectives of Border 2025, along
with the target outputs, expected
results, and status of each action.61
60 ‘‘Border 2025: United States—Mexico
Environmental Program,’’ included in this docket
and accessible at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/
files/2021-05/documents/final_us_mx_border_
2025_final_may_6.pdf.
61 The ‘‘California-Baja California 2021–2023
Border 2025 Action Plan’’ is included in the docket
for this action and is accessible online at https://
www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/region-9-actionplansplanes-de-accion-de-region-9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
In addition to the ongoing efforts
under the Border 2025 agreement, in
2020, the EPA awarded the Imperial
County APCD $3,350,371 to pave 3.5
miles of residential alleyways in the
downtown core of the City of Calexico
to reduce PM2.5 and PM10.62 While the
resulting reductions of particulate
emissions will not reduce ozone levels,
it should relieve some of the cumulative
burden on disadvantaged communities
in the Imperial ozone nonattainment
area.
The EPA is committed to
environmental justice for all people, and
we acknowledge that the Imperial
County nonattainment area includes
minority and low income populations
that could be affected by this action. As
discussed in Section I.B. of this
document, the District and State have
met the requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal. Notwithstanding the purpose
of this action determining that the
Imperial ozone nonattainment area
would have attained the 2015 ozone
NAAQS but for emissions transported
from Mexico, the EPA is working to
reduce disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate
change impacts in the Imperial County
nonattainment area by other means,
including those described in this
section.
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this
document, we are proposing to
determine, consistent with our
evaluation of the ‘‘Imperial County
Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Analysis
for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’
that the Imperial County nonattainment
area would have attained the 2015
ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area
attainment date of August 3, 2021, but
for emissions emanating from outside
the United States. If finalized, the EPA’s
obligation under section 181(b)(2)(A) to
determine whether the area attained by
its attainment date will no longer apply
and the area will not be reclassified. The
area will remain designated
nonattainment and thus the State will
continue to comply with applicable
requirements for a Marignal ozone
nonattainment area.
The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept
62 A list of the Targeted Airshed Grants the EPA
awarded in fiscal years 2015–2020 is accessible
online at https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/targeted-airshed-grantrecipients. These EPA grants support projects to
reduce emissions in areas facing the highest levels
of ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter,
or PM2.5.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments from the public on this
proposal until September 14, 2022 and
will consider comments before taking
final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rulemaking does not impose any
new information collection burden
under the PRA not already approved by
the Office of Management and Budget.
This action proposes to find that the
Imperial County Marginal ozone
nonattainment area would have attained
the 2015 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, but for emissions
emanating from outside the United
States. Thus, the proposed action does
not establish any new information
collection burden that has not already
been identified and approved in the
EPA’s information collection request.63
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. The proposed determination
that Imperial County would have
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for
international emissions does not in and
of itself create any new requirements
beyond what is mandated by the CAA.
Instead, this rulemaking only makes
factual determinations, and does not
directly regulate any entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
63 On April 30, 2018, the OMB approved the
EPA’s request for renewal of the previously
approved information collection request (ICR). The
renewed request expired on April 30, 2021, 3 years
after the approval date (see OMB Control Number
2060–0695 and ICR Reference Number 201801–
2060–003 for EPA ICR No. 2347.03). On April 30,
2021, the OMB published the final 30-day Notice
(86 FR 22959) for the ICR renewal titled
‘‘Implementation of the 8-Hour National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone (Renewal)’’ (see
OMB Control Number 2060–0695 and ICR
Reference No: 202104–2060–004 for EPA ICR
Number 2347.04). The ICR renewal is pending OMB
final approval.
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 156 / Monday, August 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules
governments. This action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states and tribes, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The division of
responsibility between the Federal
Government and the states for the
purposes of implementing the NAAQS
is established under the CAA.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action has tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law.
The EPA has identified two tribal
areas located within the Imperial
County nonattainment area, which is
the subject of this action proposing to
determine the area attained the 2015
ozone NAAQS, but for emissions
emanating from outside the United
States. The EPA has invited the
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian
Reservation and the Torres Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians to engage in
government to government consultation
in advance of our proposed action and
intends to continue to communicate
with the tribes as the Agency moves
forward in developing a final rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The
EPA’s evaluation of this issue is
contained in the section of the preamble
titled ‘‘Environmental Justice
Considerations.’’
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and
classifications, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and
classifications, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 4, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–17190 Filed 8–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Aug 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50041
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2022–0025;
FXES111607MRG01–212–FF07CAMM00]
RIN 1018–BG05
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take
During Specified Activities: The Gulf of
Alaska
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
draft environmental assessment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in response to a
request from the United States Coast
Guard, propose to issue regulations
authorizing the nonlethal, incidental,
unintentional take by harassment of
small numbers of northern sea otters
during marine construction and pile
driving in the Gulf of Alaska coastal
waters. Take may result from marine
construction and pile-driving activities.
This proposed rule would authorize
take by harassment only. No lethal take
would be authorized. If this proposed
rule is finalized, we will issue letters of
authorization, upon request, for specific
proposed activities in accordance with
the final rule for a period of 5 years.
Therefore, we request comments on
these proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments on these proposed
incidental take regulations and the
accompanying draft environmental
assessment will be accepted on or before
September 14, 2022.
Information collection requirements:
If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in
this proposed rule, please note that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in this proposed rule between
30 and 60 days after publication of this
proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Therefore, comments should be
submitted to OMB, with a copy to the
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, (see ‘‘Information
Collection’’ section below under
ADDRESSES) by October 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may view this proposed rule, the
associated draft environmental
assessment, comments received, and
other supporting material at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R7–ES–2022–0025, or these
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM
15AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50030-50041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17190]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R9-OAR-2022-0501; FRL-10106-01-R9]
Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date but for
International Emissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard; Imperial County, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') is
proposing to determine that the Imperial County nonattainment area
would have attained the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) by the August 3, 2021 ``Marginal'' area attainment
date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If we
finalize this proposed action, the Imperial County nonattainment area
would no longer be subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements
pertaining to reclassification upon failure to attain and therefore
would remain classified as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. This action, when finalized, will fulfill the EPA's
statutory obligation to determine whether the Imperial County ozone
nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022- 0501 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-
3964; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Area
Designations
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment
Areas
C. Requirement for Determination of Attainment of the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
D. International Transport and Requirements for Clean Air Act
Section 179B
II. Imperial County Ozone Determination of Attainment but for
International Emissions
A. Imperial County Ozone Nonattainment Area
B. Ozone Monitoring Sites in Imperial County
C. Summary of the State's Submission
D. EPA Review of the State's Submission
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Area
Designations
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on- and non-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ground-level ozone
pollution. Exposure to ozone can harm the respiratory system (the upper
airways and lungs), can aggravate asthma and other lung diseases, and
is linked to premature death from respiratory causes. People most at
risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma,
children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially
outdoor workers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Fact Sheet--Ozone and Health, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-04/documents/20151001healthfs.pdf and in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS (or ``standards'')
for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979, 1997, and 2008.\2\ On October 26,
2015, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to establish a new 8-hour
standard.\3\ In that action, the EPA promulgated identical revised
primary and secondary ozone standards designed to protect public health
and welfare that specified an 8-hour ozone level of 0.070 parts per
million (ppm).\4\ Specifically, the standard requires that the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (i.e., the design value) may not exceed 0.070 ppm.\5\
When the design value does not exceed 0.070 ppm at each ambient air
quality monitoring
[[Page 50031]]
site within the area, the area is deemed to be attaining the ozone
NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979), 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997),
and 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\3\ 80 FR 65452.
\4\ Because the 2015 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are
identical, for convenience, the EPA refers to them in the singular
as ``the 2015 ozone NAAQS'' or as ``the standard.''
\5\ A design value is a statistic used to compare data collected
at an ambient air quality monitoring site to the applicable NAAQS to
determine compliance with the standard. The design value for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. The design value
is calculated for each air quality monitor in an area and the area's
design value is the highest design value among the individual
monitoring sites in the area.
\6\ The data handling convention in 40 CFR 50, appendix U
dictates that concentrations shall be reported in ``ppm'' to the
third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being
truncated. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of
0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and would exceed the standard,
but a design value of 0.0709 is truncated to 0.070 and attains the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 107(d) of the CAA provides that when the EPA promulgates a
new or revised NAAQS, the Agency must designate areas of the country as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether an area
is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that
is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified
as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D
of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and
emissions control requirements for any areas designated as
nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA
section 181(a)(1) also requires the EPA to classify each ozone
nonattainment area at the time of designation, based on the extent of
the ozone problem in the area (based on the area's design value).
Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas range from ``Marginal''
to ``Extreme.'' CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment
planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone
nonattainment area based on its classification. CAA section 182, as
interpreted in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1308
through 51.1317, also establishes the timeframes by which air agencies
must submit and implement SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable
attainment planning elements, and the timeframes by which nonattainment
areas must attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 52 areas throughout
the country, including Imperial County, California, nonattainment for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\7\ In a separate action, the EPA assigned
classification thresholds and attainment dates based on the severity of
each nonattainment area's ozone problem, determined by the area's
design values and classified the Imperial County nonattainment area as
Marginal.\8\ The EPA established the attainment date for Marginal ozone
nonattainment areas as three years from the effective date of the final
designations. Thus, the attainment date for Marginal nonattainment
areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS was August 3, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). The EPA later designated the San
Antonio area as a 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area effective
September 24, 2018. 83 FR 35136 (July 25, 2018).
\8\ 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 2018), effective May 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas
The list of applicable requirements for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal includes a submission that meets the baseline
emissions inventory, source emission statements, and nonattainment new
source review program requirements. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) has provided submittals to the EPA for the Imperial County
nonattainment area addressing these requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, and the EPA has proposed to approve them.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Our proposed approvals of the District's baseline emissions
inventory, emissions statement rule, and nonattainment new source
review certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are at 86 FR 54887
(October 5, 2021), 86 FR 70996 (December 14, 2021), and 87 FR 22163
(April 14, 2022), respectively. We finalized our approval of the
emissions statement rule on July 29, 2022 (87 FR 45657).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation and general conformity apply within the Imperial
County 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area under section 176(c) of the
CAA and the federal regulations for transportation conformity (40 CFR
93 subpart A) and general federal actions (40 CFR 93 subpart B). This
action, if finalized, would not affect the applicability of these
regulations within Imperial County.
As described in the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule, section
182(a) of the CAA does not require states to implement reasonably
available control measures (RACM) or reasonably available control
technology (RACT) in Marginal ozone nonattainment areas, and nothing in
section 179B alters the statutory requirements with respect to RACM/
RACT obligations in subpart 2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 83 FR 62998, 63010 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Requirement for Determination of Attainment of the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that within 6 months
following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine
whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based
on the area's design value as of that date. If the EPA determines that
an area failed to attain, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the area to
be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next
higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification
applicable to the area's design value as of the determination of
failure to attain.\11\ Section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA
to publish the determination of failure to attain and accompanying
reclassification in the Federal Register no later than 6 months after
the attainment date, which in the case of the Imperial County
nonattainment area, was February 3, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ If the EPA were to determine that the Imperial County
nonattainment area failed to attain by the attainment date, it would
be classified to the next highest classification of Moderate. The
reclassified area would then be subject to the Moderate area
requirement to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than August 3, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's proposed determination that Imperial County would have
attained the 2015 ozone standard but for international emissions is
based in part upon data that have been collected and quality-assured by
CARB and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database.\12\ Ambient air quality monitoring data for the
3-year period preceding the attainment date (2018-2020 for the 2015
ozone NAAQS Marginal areas) must meet the data completeness
requirements in Appendix U.\13\ The completeness requirements are met
for the 3-year period at a monitoring site if daily maximum 8-hour
average concentrations of ozone are available for at least 90 percent
of the days within the ozone monitoring season, on average, for the 3-
year period, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA maintains the AQS, a database that contains ambient
air pollution data collected by the EPA, state, local, and tribal
air pollution control agencies. The AQS also contains meteorological
data, descriptive information about each monitoring station
(including its geographic location and its operator) and data
quality assurance/quality control information. The AQS data are used
to (1) assess air quality, (2) assist in attainment/non-attainment
designations, (3) evaluate SIPs for non-attainment areas, (4)
perform modeling for permit review analysis, and (5) prepare reports
for Congress as mandated by the CAA. Access is through the website
at https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
\13\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, Sec. 4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For areas such as Imperial County classified as Marginal
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the attainment date was August
3, 2021.\14\ Because the design value is based on the three most
recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later
than December 31st of the year prior to the attainment date (i.e.,
December 31, 2020, in the case of Marginal nonattainment areas for the
2015 ozone NAAQS). Consequently, the EPA's proposed action for the
Imperial County
[[Page 50032]]
nonattainment area is based upon the complete, quality-assured, and
certified ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2018, 2019, and
2020. The design value for this period is 0.078 ppm, indicating that
the Imperial County nonattainment area did not attain the 2015 ozone
NAAQS by its August 3, 2021 attainment date.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The San Antonio, Texas area has an attainment date of
September 24, 2021.
\15\ ``EPA Evaluation of the Clean Air Act Section 179B(b)
Demonstration for the Imperial County Marginal Ozone Nonattainment
Area,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. International Transport and Requirements for Clean Air Act Section
179B
CAA section 179B(b) provides that where a state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that an ozone nonattainment area would
have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for
emissions emanating from outside the United States (U.S.), that area
shall not be subject to the mandatory reclassification provision of CAA
section 181(b)(2).\16\ In the event an air agency does not demonstrate
to the EPA's satisfaction that it would have attained the NAAQS but for
international emissions, it will be reclassified to the next higher
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Note that the statute cites 42 U.S.C. 7511(a)(2), but that
provision establishes ozone attainment deadlines for severe areas
under the 1-hour standard. The EPA has long interpreted the citation
in CAA section 179B(b) to be a scrivener's error that was supposed
to refer to 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2), which refers to consequences for
failure to attain by the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic emissions sources outside of the U.S. can affect to
varying degrees the ability of some air agencies to attain and maintain
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in areas within their jurisdiction. In a
nonattainment area affected by international emissions, an air agency
may elect under CAA section 179B to develop and submit to the EPA a
demonstration intended to show that a nonattainment area would attain,
or would have attained, the relevant NAAQS by the applicable statutory
attainment date ``but for'' emissions emanating from outside the
U.S.\17\ Under CAA section 179B, the EPA evaluates such demonstrations,
and if it agrees with the air agency's demonstration, the EPA considers
the impacts of international emissions in taking specific regulatory
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ All references to CAA section 179B are to 42 U.S.C. 7509a.
International border areas, as added Public Law 101-549, title VIII,
Sec. 818, 104 Stat. 2697 (November 15, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 179B provides the EPA with authority to consider
impacts from international emissions in two contexts: (1) a
``prospective'' state demonstration submitted as part of an attainment
plan, which the EPA considers when determining whether the SIP
adequately demonstrates that a nonattainment area will attain the NAAQS
by its future attainment date (CAA section 179B(a)); or (2) a
``retrospective'' state demonstration, which the EPA considers after
the attainment date in determining whether a nonattainment area
attained the NAAQS by the attainment date (CAA section 179B(b)-(d)).
First, CAA section 179B(a) provides that, ``[N]otwithstanding any
other provision of law, an implementation plan or plan revision
required under this chapter shall be approved by the Administrator if
(1) such plan or revision meets all the requirements applicable to it .
. . other than a requirement that such plan or revision demonstrate
attainment and maintenance of the relevant national ambient air quality
standards by the attainment date specified under the applicable
provision of this chapter, or in a regulation promulgated under such
provision, and (2) the submitting state establishes to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that the implementation plan of such state would
be adequate to attain and maintain the relevant national ambient air
quality standards by the attainment date . . . but for emissions
emanating from outside of the United States,'' (emphasis added). The
EPA refers to CAA section 179B(a) demonstrations as ``prospective''
demonstrations because they are intended to assess future air quality,
taking into consideration the impact of international emissions. Thus,
if the EPA approves a prospective demonstration, the state is relieved
from the requirement to demonstrate that the nonattainment area will
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Section 182(a) of the CAA, which describes nonattainment
area requirements for ozone Marginal areas, states that the
requirements of section 182(a) ``shall apply in lieu of any
requirement that the State submit a demonstration that the
applicable implementation plan provides for attainment of the ozone
standard by the applicable attainment date in any Marginal Area.''
In other words, there is no prospective relief that can be granted
by the EPA under section 179B(a) for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, CAA section 179B(b) provides that, for ozone nonattainment
areas, ``[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any State that
establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that . . . such
State would have attained the national ambient air quality standard . .
. by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from
outside of the United States,'' (emphasis added) shall not be subject
to reclassification to a higher classification category by operation of
law, as otherwise required in CAA section 181(b)(2).\19\ The EPA refers
to demonstrations developed under CAA section 179B(b) as
``retrospective'' demonstrations because they involve analyses of past
air quality (e.g., air quality data from the yearsevaluated for
determining whether an area attained by the attainment date). Thus, an
EPA-approved retrospective demonstration provides relief from
reclassification that would have resulted from the EPA determining that
the area failed to attain the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The EPA's longstanding view is that CAA section 179B(b)
contains an erroneous reference to section 181(a)(2), and that
Congress actually intended to refer here to section 181(b)(2), which
addresses reclassification requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. See ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498, 13569, footnote 41 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of whether developing and submitting a prospective or
retrospective demonstration, states still must meet all nonattainment
area requirements applicable for the relevant NAAQS and area
classification. The 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule did not
include regulatory requirements specific to CAA section 179B but did
provide guidance on certain points. In the preamble to the rule, the
EPA confirmed that: (1) only areas classified Moderate and higher must
show that they have implemented reasonably available control measures
and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT); (2) CAA
section 179B demonstrations are not geographically limited to
nonattainment areas adjoining an international border; and, (3) a state
demonstration prepared under CAA section 179B can consider emissions
emanating from sources in North America (i.e., Canada or Mexico) or
sources on other continents.\20\ In the preamble to that rule, the EPA
encouraged air agencies to consult with the appropriate EPA regional
office to determine technical requirements for the CAA section 179B
demonstrations. In addition, the EPA noted its development of
supplementary technical information and guidance to assist air agencies
in preparing demonstrations that meet the requirements of CAA section
179B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 83 FR 62998, 63009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA issued more detailed guidance regarding CAA section 179B on
December 18, 2020, that includes recommendations to assist state,
local, and tribal air agencies that intend to
[[Page 50033]]
develop a CAA section 179B demonstration (``179B Guidance'').\21\ The
179B Guidance describes and provides examples of the kinds of
information and analyses that the EPA recommends air agencies consider
for inclusion in a CAA section 179B demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act Section 179B
Demonstrations for Nonattainment Areas Affected by International
Transport of Emissions'' issued on December 18, 2020; available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/final_caa_179b_guidance_december_2020_with_disclaimer_ogc.pdf. The
EPA also issued a notice of availability in the Federal Register on
January 7, 2021 (86 FR 1107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 179B Guidance, the EPA confirmed that while approval of a
CAA section 179B demonstration provides specific forms of regulatory
relief for air agencies, the EPA's approval does not relieve air
agencies from obligations to meet the remaining applicable planning or
emission reduction requirements in the CAA. It also does not provide a
basis either for excluding air monitoring data influenced by
international transport from regulatory determinations related to
attainment and nonattainment, or for redesignating an area to
attainment. If an air agency is contemplating a CAA section 179B
demonstration in either the CAA section 179B(a) ``prospective'' context
or the CAA section 179B(b) ``retrospective'' context, the EPA
encourages communication throughout the demonstration development and
submission process, along the lines of these basic steps: (1) the air
agency contacts its EPA Regional office to discuss CAA section 179B
regulatory interests and conceptual model; (2) the air agency begins
gathering information and developing analyses for a demonstration; (3)
the air agency submits a draft CAA section 179B demonstration to its
EPA Regional office for review and discussion; and (4) the air agency
submits its final CAA section 179B demonstration to the EPA. After that
process is complete, the EPA makes a determination as to the
sufficiency of the demonstration after a public notice and comment
process. The EPA may act on a prospective demonstration when taking
action on an area's attainment plan. For a retrospective demonstration,
the EPA may determine its adequacy when taking action to determine
whether the area attained by the attainment date and is subject to
reclassification.
The EPA's consideration of the CAA section 179B demonstrations
submitted by states in connection with reclassification of ozone
nonattainment areas is governed by CAA section 179B(b).\22\ Pursuant to
that provision, the state must establish ``to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that, with respect to [the relevant] ozone nonattainment
area in such State, such State would have attained the [2015 ozone
NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating
from outside of the United States . . .'' Because the wording in CAA
section 179B(b) is in the past tense, it is reasonable for the EPA to
conclude that such demonstrations should be retrospective in nature. In
other words, the demonstration should include analyses showing that the
air quality data on specific days in the time period used to assess
attainment were affected by international emissions to an extent that
prevented the area from attaining the standard by the attainment
date.\23\ By definition, states can only make such a demonstration
after air quality data collected pursuant to federal reference or
equivalent monitoring methods are certified and indicate that the area
failed to attain by the attainment date. Where the EPA approves a
state's CAA section 179B(b) retrospective demonstration, the area
retains its nonattainment designation and is still subject to all
applicable requirements for the area's current classification, but is
not subject to the applicable requirements for any higher
classification.24 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The regulatory relief a state would receive from a
satisfactory prospective CAA section 179B(a) demonstration is
limited to approval of an attainment plan that does not demonstrate
attainment and maintenance of the relevant NAAQS, but meets all
other applicable requirements. CAA section 179B(a) is not germane to
this proposal.
\23\ 179B Guidance, 15-16.
\24\ Id. at 3.
\25\ As we noted in our 179B Guidance, an air agency with a
Marginal ozone nonattainment area that is affected by international
emissions may wish to evaluate whether implementing emission
reduction measures on domestic sources in the nonattainment area can
bring the area into attainment because, until the area attains the
NAAQS and the EPA approves an air agency submission addressing the
redesignation criteria of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), the area will
continue to be subject to nonattainment area requirements, including
nonattainment new source review. Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not specify what technical analyses would be
sufficient to demonstrate ``to the satisfaction of the Administrator''
that a ``State would have attained the [NAAQS for the pollutant in
question] by the applicable attainment date, but for'' international
emissions. The EPA recognizes that the relationship between certain
NAAQS exceedances and associated international transport is clearer in
some cases than in others. The following characteristics would suggest
the need for a more detailed demonstration with additional evidence:
(1) affected monitors are not located near an international border; (2)
specific international sources and/or their contributing emissions are
not identified or are difficult to identify; (3) exceedances on
internationally influenced days are in the range of typical exceedances
attributable to local sources; and (4) exceedances occurred in
association with other processes and sources of pollutants, or on days
where meteorological conditions were conducive to local pollutant
formation (e.g., for ozone, clear skies and elevated temperatures).
Therefore, CAA section 179B demonstrations for non-border areas may
involve additional technical rigor, analyses and resources compared to
demonstrations for border areas.
Given the extensive number of technical factors and meteorological
conditions that can affect international transport of air pollution,
and the lack of specific guidance in the Act, the EPA evaluates CAA
section 179B demonstrations based on the weight of evidence of all
information and analyses provided by the air agency. The appropriate
level of supporting documentation will vary on a case-by-case basis
depending on the nature and severity of international influence, as
well as the factors identified above. The EPA considers and
qualitatively weighs all evidence based on its relevance to CAA section
179B and the nature of international contributions as described in the
demonstration's conceptual model. Every demonstration should include
fact-specific analyses tailored to the nonattainment area in question.
When a CAA section 179B demonstration shows that international
contributions are larger than domestic contributions, the weight of
evidence will be more compelling than if the demonstration shows
domestic contributions exceeding international contributions. In
contrast, when a CAA section 179B demonstration shows that
international emissions have a lower contribution to ozone
concentrations than domestic emissions, and/or international transport
is not significantly different on local exceedance days compared to
non-exceedance days, then the weight of evidence will not be supportive
of a conclusion that a nonattainment area would attain or would have
attained the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date ``but
for'' emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
In evaluating a CAA section 179B demonstration the EPA also
considers what measures an air agency has implemented to control local
emissions.
[[Page 50034]]
At a minimum, states are still subject to all requirements applicable
to the area based on its nonattainment classification. For the EPA to
concur with a state's CAA section 179B retrospective demonstration, the
weight of evidence should show the area could not attain with on-the-
books measures and and potential reductions associated with controls
required for that particular NAAQS that are to be implemented by the
attainment date. Because CAA section 179B does not relieve an air
agency of its planning or control obligations, the air agency should
show that it has implemented all required emissions controls at the
local level as part of its demonstration.
II. Imperial County Ozone Determination of Attainment but for
International Emissions
A. Imperial County Ozone Nonattainment Area
The Imperial County nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone standard
includes the whole County, including lands of the Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians within the geographic boundary of Imperial County.\26\ The
County encompasses over 4,000 square miles in southeastern California.
Its population is estimated to be approximately 180,000 people,\27\ and
its principal industries are farming and retail trade. It is bordered
by Riverside County to the north, Arizona to the east, Mexico to the
south, and San Diego County to the west. The Imperial Valley runs
north-south through the central part of the County and includes the
County's three most populated cities: Brawley, El Centro, and Calexico.
Most of the County's population and industries exist within this
relatively narrow land area that extends about one-fourth the width of
the County. The rest of Imperial County is primarily desert, with
little or no human population.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 40 CFR 81.305.
\27\ U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, July 1 2021,
(V2021), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/imperialcountycalifornia,
accessed April 6, 2021.
\28\ Maps showing stationary NOX and VOC emission
sources, vehicle traffic, and population density in Imperial County
are included as Figures A-1-A-3 in the EPA's technical support
document, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Ozone Monitoring Sites in Imperial County
There are currently four ozone monitoring sites in Imperial County.
Listed from south to north, the Imperial ozone monitoring sites are:
Calexico-Ethel Street, El Centro-9th Street, Westmorland, and
Niland.\29\ The maximum 2020 design value for the County, based on
certified monitoring data at the monitor located closest to the Mexico
border (the Calexico-Ethel Street monitor), was 0.078 ppm. Calexico-
Ethel Street is the only ozone monitor in Imperial County violating the
2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. The 2020 design value for the El Centro-
9th Street monitor was 0.068 ppm, i.e., attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The design values for monitors farther from the border, Westmorland
(0.058 ppm) and Niland (0.049 ppm), are invalid due to less than 90
percent data completeness for the three-year period and less than 75
percent completeness in calendar year 2020.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A map showing the ozone monitoring sites in Imperial County
is included as Figure 4 in the EPA's technical support document,
which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
\30\ We note that the 2020 design values at Westmorland of 58
ppb and at Niland of 49 ppb are invalid because the average data
completeness of 84 percent and 86 percent for the 2018-2020 period
and 72 percent and 67 percent in 2020, respectively. These
percentages are below the minimum completeness thresholds of 90
percent for the three-year period and 75 percent for an individual
year, respectively. Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report
(AMP480), pulled December 3, 2021, and 40 CFR part 50, App. U,
section 4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 1 and 2 of this document list the 2016-2020 annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average (``4th max'') and design values at
the Imperial County ozone monitors. The Calexico-Ethel Street monitor,
which is one mile from the border, consistently measures the highest
4th max concentration in each year; concentrations decrease as each
monitor's distance from the border increases. The 2019 design value,
which is valid for all four sites, shows a similar relationship between
concentration and distance from the border: 0.079 ppm at Calexico-Ethel
Street, 0.072 ppm at El Centro-9th Street (9 miles from border), 0.061
ppm at Westmorland (26 miles from border), and 0.054 ppm at Niland (38
miles from border).
The Niland monitor design value has been consistently below 0.070
ppm since 2016. In addition, the valid design values and complete
yearly 4th maxes at Niland have been consistently lower than the El
Centro-9th Street and Calexico-Ethel Street monitors in the past five
years. The Westmorland monitor started operation in July 2015; the only
valid Westmorland monitor design value, in 2019, was 0.061 ppm, below
the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. In addition, the complete yearly 4th
maxes at Westmorland have been consistently lower than the El Centro-
9th Street and Calexico-Ethel Street monitors in the past five years.
Table 1--2015 Ozone NAAQS: 2016-2020 Yearly 4th Max Imperial County Ozone Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance from 4th max (ppm)
Site name AQS site ID border -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(miles) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calexico-Ethel Street................... 06-025-0005 1 0.074 0.082 0.076 0.080 0.080
El Centro-9th Street.................... 06-025-1003 9 \a\ 0.074 0.079 0.075 0.062 0.069
Westmorland............................. 06-025-4003 26 0.063 0.063 0.061 0.059 \a\ 0.054
Niland.................................. 06-025-4004 38 0.062 0.057 0.051 0.054 \a\ 0.043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report (AMP480), pulled December 3, 2021.
\a\ Incomplete; did not meet completeness threshold of 75% for an individual year.
Table 2--2015 Ozone NAAQS Design Values Imperial County Ozone Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value (ppm)
Site name AQS site ID -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calexico-Ethel Street................................... 06-025-0005 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.079 0.078
El Centro-9th Street.................................... 06-025-1003 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.072 0.068
Westmorland............................................. 06-025-4003 \a\ 0.060 \a\ 0.061 \a\ 0.062 0.061 \a\ 0.058
[[Page 50035]]
Niland.................................................. 06-025-4004 0.067 0.063 0.056 0.054 \a\ 0.049
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), pulled December 3, 2021.
\a\ Invalid because data are incomplete (did not meet minimum completeness thresholds of 90% for the three-year period).
C. Summary of the State's Submission
On August 16, 2021, CARB submitted to the EPA for review its
``Imperial County Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Analysis for the 70 ppb
8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``Demonstration''). CARB submitted additional
information on November 24, 2021. Using several lines of evidence, CARB
evaluated whether, and the extent to which, ambient ozone levels in
Imperial County would be affected by emissions emanating from northern
Mexico. This evaluation includes a conceptual model of ozone formation
in Imperial County including a discussion of the meteorological and
topographic conditions that influence ozone formation; an analysis of
the ozone design value trends in the County from 2000 to 2020; an
emissions inventory analysis comparing ozone precursor emissions in
Imperial County, California to those in the Mexicali Municipality in
Mexico; an ambient observational analysis of back-trajectories
examining whether there is an internationally influenced source-
receptor relationship on ozone exceedance days in Imperial County; and
a photochemical air quality modeling exercise estimating the
contribution of cross-border, northern Mexico emissions to ozone design
values in Imperial County.
1. Conceptual Model
CARB provided a conceptual model describing ozone formation in the
Imperial County ozone nonattainment area, which is located on the
border of the United States and Mexico and encompasses all of Imperial
County. Imperial County includes the northern portion of the Imperial
Valley, which extends from the southern end of the Salton Sea southward
into Mexico, where it becomes known as the Mexicali Valley. The valleys
are bordered by mountains to the west and east, and on the south side
by mountains south of the border to the southwest of Mexicali. These
ranges channel airflow within the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys,
without topographic features between, creating a shared binational air
shed for the region. Imperial County experiences hot, dry weather and
stagnation in the summer, which are conducive to ozone formation.
Highest ozone concentrations are experienced between May through
September and generally peak in the late afternoon. Ozone and ozone
precursors are often transported to Imperial County by prevailing winds
from Mexicali to the south, and to a lesser extent from other
surrounding air basins.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Demonstration, 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided trends in the ozone design values for the Calexico-
Ethel Street, El Centro-9th Street, and Niland monitors, number of days
with maximum daily 8-hour ozone values greater than 70 ppb within the
nonattainment area, and Imperial County ozone precursor emissions from
2000-2020.\32\ The County's maximum ozone design value across all
monitors has decreased over the past two decades, along with a 60
percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and a 45%
reduction in anthropogenic VOC emissions within Imperial County over
that period.\33\ The Calexico monitor's design value trend, however,
has been relatively flat when compared to the downward trend at the
Niland and, more recently, at the El Centro monitors, which are farther
from the border. From 2003 through 2015, El Centro had the highest
design value of the three monitors for all design value periods except
for two: Calexico and El Centro had the same design value in 2016, and
from 2017-2020 Calexico had the highest design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id. at 4-6. CARB often states ozone concentrations in units
of parts per billion (ppb). The form of the NAAQS in 40 CFR 50.15 is
in ppm (parts per million). To convert from ppm to ppb, multiply ppm
by 1000. Thus, e.g., 0.070 ppm becomes 70 ppb. While those values
are numerically equal, for comparison of concentrations to the NAAQS
care must be used in applying the data handling requirements of 40
CFR 50, appendix P, e.g., truncation after the third digit of a ppm
value is equivalent to dropping digits after the decimal point in a
ppb value.
\33\ 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 document, we use the term VOC to refer to this set
of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions Analysis for Imperial County and the Mexicali Municipality
CARB provided a table of 2018 ozone precursor emissions, shown in
Table 3 of this document.\34\ The emissions of both NOX and
VOC in the Mexicali Municipality are approximately four times larger
than Imperial County emissions. These emissions do not include
emissions originating in other parts of Mexico or elsewhere that could
also affect ozone levels in Imperial County. CARB notes that while
domestic emissions have decreased, the Mexicali emissions have
increased. CARB also notes that the population of Mexicali Municipality
grew from around 600,000 in the early 1990s to over 1.1 million in 2019
and that it has become an economic center for the region with a
corresponding increase in emissions for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ CARB's Demonstration, Appendix A, 17-19 describes the
emissions used in the photochemical modeling exercise and summarized
in Table 3 of this document. Updated Mexico emissions were developed
as part of a project prepared for CARB by the Eastern Research
Group, Inc. (ERG). ERG, Final Report, ``2014 Northern Baja
California Emissions Inventory Project,'' September 30, 2019.
Table 3--CARB's 2018 Imperial County and Mexicali Municipality Emissions Inventory
[tons per day (tpd), summer planning inventory] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial county City of Mexicali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source NOX (tpd) NOX (tpd)
NOX (%) VOC (tpd) VOC (%) NOX (%) VOC (tpd) VOC (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary...................................... 1.4 9 1.3 10 3.3 5 12.8 21
Area-wide....................................... 0.2 1 6.6 49 1.0 1 29.6 50
[[Page 50036]]
Off-Road Mobile................................. 8.8 55 3.0 22 8.0 12 0.8 1
On-Road Mobile.................................. 5.6 35 2.5 19 54.4 82 16.4 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 16.0 100 13.5 100 66.6 100 59.6 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The EPA calculated percentages using information from Demonstration, Appendix A, Table 3, 19.
\a\ CARB modeled April-October and refers to this period as the ``modeled ozone season'' and the emission inventory used as the ``summer planning
inventory''. For calendar years 2018-2020 all max daily 8-hour ozone values above 70 ppb at Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street occurred
between April-September. These months represent peak ozone for the area.
3. Ambient Observational Analysis--Back Trajectories
CARB's Demonstration includes an analysis of back trajectories
created using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
(HYSPLIT) model.\35\ The analysis includes trajectories for each
exceedance day in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (when the daily maximum eight-
hour average ozone level was above 70 ppb) at the two Imperial County
monitors with the highest 2020 design values, Calexico-Ethel Street (42
exceedance days) and El Centro-9th Street (17 exceedance days). CARB
identified the hours contributing to the daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone value for each exceedance day and then used HYSPLIT to generate
8-hour back-trajectories for each of the eight hours that contributed
to the maximum 8-hour average ozone value for each exceedance day at
each monitor. CARB generated back-trajectories for three starting
altitudes (100, 500, and 1000 meters (m)) at each monitor using
meteorological data from the North American Mesoscale Forecast System
(NAM) 12 kilometer (km) pressure coordinate system dataset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Demonstration, Appendix B. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Model
(HYSPLIT), https://www.ready.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's analysis flagged an exceedance day as having likely
influence from emissions emanating from Mexico if the majority of back-
trajectories (at least five out of eight) for that day originated from
or passed over Mexico. CARB then removed those flagged days and
recalculated the 2020 design values for the Calexico-Ethel Street and
El Centro-9th Street monitors. Using this analysis, CARB asserts that
when days with likely influence from emissions emanating from Mexico
are excluded based on the HYSPLIT analysis, the estimated design values
for the monitors would meet the 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) 8-hour ozone
standard.
4. Modeling To Quantify International Contribution--CARB Photochemical
Modeling
Appendix A to CARB's Demonstration describes CARB's photochemical
modeling. CARB simulated conditions between April 2018 and October 2018
using the Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) driven by
meteorological fields from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)
prognostic model.\36\ The overall CMAQ air quality modeling domain
covers the entire State of California, and has a horizontal grid size
resolution of 12 kilometer (km) with 107 x 97 lateral grid cells for
each vertical layer. It extends from the Pacific Ocean in the west to
eastern Nevada in the east, and from the northern Mexico in the south
to the California-Oregon border in the north. The smaller nested domain
used to model the Imperial County nonattainment area covers southern
California (including the South Coast, San Diego, and Salton Sea air
basins) and northern Mexico, has a finer scale 4 km grid resolution,
and includes 156 x 102 lateral grid cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ CMAQ model version 5.3.2, released by the EPA in October
2020. Further information on CMAQ is available at: https://www.cmascenter.org/cmaq/. WRF model version 4.2.1. Further
information on WRF is available at https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/weather-research-and-forecasting-model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB included a performance analysis for the meteorological model
(WRF) and the ozone model (CMAQ) simulations including statistics
recommended in the EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,''
(``Modeling Guidance'').\37\ CARB validated the WRF-simulated surface
wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity from the 4 km domain
against hourly observations at 13 surface stations in Imperial County
and included detailed hourly time-series together with spatial
distributions of the mean bias and mean error.\38\ CARB also included a
phenomenological analysis showing the model captures the general
meteorological patterns affecting the region on exceedance days.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ EPA 454/R-18-009, November 2018.
\38\ Demonstration, 24-27 and 46-58.
\39\ Id. at 28-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided an operational evaluation of the ozone model
performance including tables of statistics for elevated ozone periods
(greater than 60 ppb) as recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 1-
hour ozone, daily maximum 1-hour ozone, and daily maximum 8-hour
modeled ozone compared to observations at the Calexico-Ethel Street and
El Centro-9th Street ozone monitoring locations.\40\ CARB also provided
scatter plots, time series and additional performance statistics and
compared these results to those from similar studies in other
areas.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. at 34-36.
\41\ Id. at 37-39 and 59-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After confirming the model performance for the 2018 base case using
2018 anthropogenic emissions for both the U.S. and Mexico, CARB
performed a ``brute-force'' or ``zero-out'' sensitivity case. The only
difference from the base case is that anthropogenic, near-source
northern Mexico emissions (those within the CMAQ 4 and 12 km modeling
domains \42\) were excluded from the simulation. CARB then used the
modeled zero-out and base case results to apply a pseudo-Relative
Reduction Factor (RRF) to observations and to predict the contribution
of near-source northern Mexico emissions to the average of Imperial
County 2018, 2019, and 2020 ozone design values.\43\ Here, the RRF
represents the fractional change
[[Page 50037]]
in modeled peak ozone between the base and zero-out simulations. The
Modeling Guidance recommends calculating an RRF based on the highest 10
modeled days in the simulated period (at each monitoring site). CARB
used the top 10 days from the base case simulation and then the same
corresponding days from the zero-out simulation. These values are based
on the maximum simulated ozone within a 3x3 array of grid cells
surrounding the grid cell in which the monitor is located. The
predicted design values were then calculated by multiplying the average
of Imperial County 2018, 2019, and 2020 design values by the pseudo-
RRFs. The change in design value represents the contribution of near-
source, northern Mexico emissions to the design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Demonstration, Appendix A, Figure 6 and email dated
March 3, 2022, from Chenxia Cai (CARB) to Rynda Kay (EPA), Subject:
``RE: Imperial 179B(b) demo: quick clarification question on model
set-up.''
\43\ The Modeling Guidance recommends using three 3-year design
value periods when doing an attainment test as part of a SIP
demonstration for ozone in order to account for meteorological
variability. CARB applied this approach to its 179B(b) modeling
demonstration and calculated design values for the 3 three-year
periods ending in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and then averaged them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4 of this document, with the removal of
anthropogenic northern Mexico emissions in the 4 km and 12 km modeling
domains, the average of the 2018-2020 design values for Calexico-Ethel
Street is predicted to be reduced from 78.0 to 69.2 ppb, and for El
Centro-9th Street is reduced from 72.0 to 61.3 ppb. These calculations
indicate that emissions from northern Mexico contribute approximately 9
ppb to the design value at the Calexico-Ethel Street monitor and
approximately 11 ppb to the design value at the El Centro-9th Street
monitor. The contribution from the rest of Mexico and other
international sources outside of the modeling domain were not removed.
Had the contribution from the rest of Mexico and other international
sources also been removed, the modeling would have predicted a larger
contribution to the design values from international emissions.
Table 4--CARB's Average 2018-2020 Design Values Estimates Based on Scaling Exercise From CARB Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated DVB
without Approximate
Measured anthropogenic northern
average 2018- northern Mexico Change in
Monitoring site 2020 design Mexico contribution design value
values (DVB, emissions to DVB (ppb) (percent)
ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calexico-Ethel.................................. 78.0 69.2 8.8 11.3
El Centro-9th................................... 72.0 61.3 10.7 14.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Demonstration, 9. Note that the Demonstration refers to emissions from ``Mexico'' but only emissions
from northern Mexico (those within the 4 and 12 km modeling domains) were excluded.
Note: ``Measured Average 2018-2020 Design Values'' above takes the 2018, 2019, and 2020 design value for the
individual site and averages the three design values together to arrive at the value listed.
D. EPA Review of the State's Submission
As part of meeting its duty to determine whether the Imperial
County area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the EPA evaluated air quality monitoring data submitted by CARB
to determine the attainment status of the Imperial County nonattainment
area as of its Marginal area attainment date. The Agency has also
evaluated the State's 179B(b) demonstration that the Imperial County
nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date, but for international emissions. Based on our review,
the EPA is proposing to approve the CAA section 179B(b) demonstration.
The EPA is proposing this action to fulfill its statutory obligation
under CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine whether the Imperial County
nonattainment area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of the attainment
date of August 3, 2021. Our rationale supporting the proposed approval
of the State's 179B(b) demonstration and determination is summarized
below. The full rationale is included in the technical support document
provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
CARB's retrospective 179B(b) demonstration includes multiple lines
of evidence consistent with the key types of analyses recommended in
our 179B Guidance.\44\ These analyses appropriately focus on 2018,
2019, and 2020, which are the key years for demonstrating attainment
for a Marginal area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We agree that each line
of evidence supports the conclusion that the 2020 ozone design values
at all monitoring sites in Imperial County would be at or below 0.070
ppm (70 ppb) but for the influence of Mexican emissions. CARB's
analyses focus on the influence from near-source northern Mexico
contribution; the EPA notes that this is a narrow, conservative
approach to analyzing ``international contribution.'' Even with this
approach, we find that these analyses support this conclusion. Based on
the evaluation of these analyses as a whole, the EPA agrees that
Imperial County would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August
3, 2021 attainment date but for emissions emanating from Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 179B Guidance, Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB provided a conceptual model describing the meteorology and
topography of the area, an evaluation of ozone precursor emissions, and
an analysis of ozone trends at County monitors. We agree that the
following factors support the proposition that the Mexicali
Municipality emissions likely have a substantial influence on Imperial
County ozone levels, particularly at the Calexico-Ethel monitor, which
remains the only monitor with a violating 2020 design value: the
topography and meteorology of the Imperial and Mexicali areas results
in a single, shared binational airshed; Mexicali Municipality ozone
precursor emissions are much larger (currently approximately four times
greater) than Imperial County emissions; ozone concentration trends
over time show that monitors farther from the border have experienced
decreasing concentrations, while at the Calexico-Ethel monitor
concentrations have remained flat; and spatially, ozone concentrations
decrease with increasing distance from the border.
CARB ran the HYSPLIT model to generate 8-hour back-trajectories for
each of the eight hours contributing to each 2018-2020 daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone exceedance (greater than 70 ppb) at the Calexico-
Ethel and El Centro-9th Street monitors at three altitudes (100 m, 500
m, 1000 m). CARB flagged days that had at least 5 of the 8 hours
originating from or traversing through Mexico as having likely
influence from emissions emanating from Mexico. The 179B Guidance
recommends a slightly more stringent
[[Page 50038]]
test for identifying days influenced by international emissions using a
threshold of 75 percent of trajectories (e.g., 6 of 8 trajectories) as
indicating values that are likely influenced by international emissions
for a given day.\45\ CARB notes that for more than 75 percent of
flagged days, six or more of the eight 8-hour back-trajectories
originated from or went through Mexico, with most back-trajectories
passing over the city of Mexicali.\46\ The EPA performed additional
analysis and found that 61-87 percent of the 8-hour back trajectories
(considering all three starting altitudes of 100 m, 500 m, and 1000 m)
passed over Mexico within the 8-hour period prior to arriving at the
monitoring site, with 55-80 percent passing over the Mexicali
Municipality. The remaining trajectories, particularly at lower
elevations, generally come from the northwest, following valley
topography, over the sparsely populated Anza-Borrego desert region. We
conclude that the high percentage of 8-hour back trajectories passing
over Mexicali supports the conclusion that there is a direct
international source-receptor relationship between the Mexicali area
and Imperial County on 2018-2020 exceedance days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 179B Guidance, 34.
\46\ Demonstration, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also recalculated the 2020 design value excluding the days
flagged following the same methodology. The EPA notes that flagged days
on which international emissions are likely to have an impact might
also be affected by domestic emissions, and a simple back-trajectory
analysis cannot distinguish whether ozone levels on that day would have
exceeded the NAAQS without any international contributions. Therefore,
a simple recalculation of the design value excluding days with
influence from Mexico is not a conclusive ``but for'' analysis.
However, the EPA agrees that CARB's 8-hour back trajectory analysis
shows that there is consistent, direct transport from the high-
emissions Mexicali Municipality on high ozone days to violating
Imperial County monitors. This direct transport, in conjunction with
the much larger emissions magnitudes in Mexicali than in Imperial
County, supports an international source-receptor relationship between
the Mexicali area and Imperial County on exceedance days.
CARB used CMAQ (version 5.3.2) driven by WRF (version 4.2.1)
meteorological fields to conduct its photochemical modeling analysis.
The EPA recognizes both CMAQ and WRF as technically sound, state-of-
the-science models applicable for use in regulatory applications.\47\
We find that the areal extent and the horizontal and vertical
resolution CARB used in these models are appropriate for modeling
Imperial County ozone. The diurnal variation of temperature, humidity
and surface wind are well represented by WRF and the model captures the
main meteorological features contributing to high ozone in Imperial
County. We reviewed the scatter plots, time series, and performance
statistics provided and agree that, overall, the CMAQ modeling
performance is acceptable and compares favorably to similar studies in
other areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Memorandum dated August 4, 2017, from Tyler Fox, EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Subject: ``Use of
Photochemical Grid Models for Single-Source Ozone and Secondary
PM2.5 Impacts for Permit Program Related Assessments and
for NAAQS Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, CARB used the model results to estimate
the impact of cross-border, northern Mexico emissions on air quality.
The results of this estimate were applied to the average of the 2018,
2019, and 2020 ozone design values at Calexico-Ethel Street and El
Centro-9th Street (78 and 72 ppb, respectively) and indicate near-
source Mexico emissions contribute approximately 9 ppb and 11 ppb to
the design values at Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street,
respectively. The EPA notes that the analysis here conservatively
evaluates only cross-border emissions from northern Mexico, and does
not evaluate effects of international emissions from other parts of
Mexico or elsewhere.
The EPA has performed additional analysis of its 2020 Ozone Policy
Assessment (``2020 PA'') modeling \48\ to provide broad U.S. and
international source attribution for 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment
areas in the year 2016.\49\ The 2020 PA modeling predicts that
nationwide, average simulated international anthropogenic ozone
contribution to the top 10 model days over all nonattainment areas is
5.3 4.9 ppb (mean standard deviation) and the
average U.S. anthropogenic ozone contribution is 40.2 13.5
ppb.\50\ This result shows that in most nonattainment areas the U.S.
anthropogenic contribution is much larger than the international
anthropogenic contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. EPA. (2020). Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No. EPA-452/R-20-001).
Research Triangle Park, NC: United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/o3-final_pa-05-29-20compressed.pdf.
\49\ Memorandum dated August 10, 2021, from Barron Henderson and
Heather Simon (EPA, OAQPS), Subject: ``Designated Area Source
Attribution Results Related to the National Determination of
Attainment by the Attainment date (DAAD) Action.''
\50\ The EPA modeling was done for the year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2020 PA modeling predicts that the international anthropogenic
ozone contribution to the top 10 model days specifically for Imperial
County is 31.8 ppb, the largest international anthropogenic
contribution of any nonattainment area in the country. In contrast to
the modeling submitted by CARB, which quantifies only the small portion
of the international contribution that comes from near-source
anthropogenic emissions in northern Mexico, the EPA's modeling
quantifies impacts from all international anthropogenic emissions
sources. This international anthropogenic contribution is four times
larger than the U.S. anthropogenic contribution of 8.2 ppb on those
days. The EPA also provided contribution estimates to the average of
the 2018, 2019, and 2020 design values for Imperial County (78 ppb) and
predicted that the international anthropogenic contribution to that
value was 31.8 ppb and U.S. anthropogenic contribution was 8.2 ppb.\51\
The analyses are from different years and different modeling platforms,
which complicates conclusions from direct comparisons. In addition,
CARB did not specifically split out the U.S. anthropogenic
contributions in their modeling. Even so, we note that the U.S.
anthropogenic contribution of 8.2 ppb from the 2020 PA modeling is
smaller than the 9-11 ppb estimated contribution from just northern
Mexico in CARB's modeling and is much smaller than the 31.8 ppb from
all international sources in the EPA's 2020 PA modeling. This
additional modeling indicates that international anthropogenic
emissions contribute significantly to ozone in Imperial County, and
that emissions from northern Mexico, while having a substantial
contribution, are only a portion of the total contribution from all
international anthropogenic sources to Imperial County ozone design
values. CARB and EPA analyses both support the conclusion that Mexican
anthropogenic emissions substantially
[[Page 50039]]
contribute to ozone exceedances in Imperial County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ In addition to the international anthropogenic and U.S.
anthropogenic contributions, natural emissions were predicted to
contribute 30.0 ppb. Due to the non-linearity of ozone chemistry,
some portion of the ozone concentration in each area cannot be
attributed solely to U.S. anthropogenic or international
anthropogenic sources. Thus, reducing this fraction of ozone
(referred to as ``Mix Anth'') requires reducing both U.S.
anthropogenic and international anthropogenic sources. The predicted
Mix Anth contribution to this value was 7.9 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the EPA finds that these multiple lines of evidence,
taken together, support the conclusion that Imperial County would have
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2021 attainment date
``but for'' international emissions and support the approval of CARB's
179B(b) demonstration.
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021) directs federal government agencies to assess
whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and
other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619,
February 1, 2021) directs federal agencies to develop programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities.
To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in
underserved communities in the Imperial County nonattainment area and
to better understand the context of our proposed approval of CARB's
179B(b) demonstration on these communities, we conducted a screening-
level analysis using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ) screening and
mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\52\ Our screening-level analysis indicates
that communities affected by this action score above the national
average for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index,'' which is the average of
an area's percent minority and percent low income populations, i.e.,
the two demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order
12898.\53\ These communities also score above the national average for
the ``linguistically isolated population,'' and ``population with less
than high school education'' indicators. Additionally, these
communities score above the national average for numerous EJ Index
indicators, including the PM2.5 EJ index and the respiratory
hazard EJ Index. We also looked at ozone design values for the 2018-
2020 period as an indicator of potential ozone pollution exposure.\54\
Both the Calexico and the El Centro monitors score above the national
average design value for this period.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing the City of Calexico, which is located
adjacent to the border with Mexico and measures the highest levels
of ozone in the nonattainment area, and the central portion of
Imperial County, where the overwhelming majority of the population
resides. These indicators are included in EJSCREEN reports that are
available in the rulemaking docket for this action.
\53\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics
cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and traffic proximity and volume)
and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). The score for a particular
indicator measures how the community of interest compares with the
state, the EPA region, or the national average. For example, if a
given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that
only five percent of the US population has a higher value than the
average person in the location being analzed. EJSCREEN also reports
EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental
indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional
information about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ
indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental
Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' section 2 (September 2019).
\54\ The ozone metric in EJSCREEN represents the summer seasonal
average of daily maximum 8-hour concentrations (parts per billion,
ppb) and was not used in our EJ analyses because it does not
represent summertime peak ozone concentrations, which are instead
represented here by the design value (DV) metric. Ozone DVs are the
basis of the attainment determination in this proposed action, and
in this case we consider it a more informative indicator of
pollution burden relative to the Imperial nonattainment area and the
U.S. as a whole.
\55\ The 2020 ozone design value for the Calexico monitor (0.078
ppm) is in the 94th percentile and the El Centro monitor (0.068 ppm)
is in the 73rd percentile among 2020 ozone design values nationally.
The percentiles were calculated using data available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/O3_DesignValues_2019_2021_FINAL_05_25_22.xlsx, Table 6. Site Trend,
column T (``2018-2020 Design Value (ppm)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color
and low-income populations, such as those in Imperial County, often
experience greater exposure and disease burdens than the general
population, which can increase their susceptibility to adverse health
effects from environmental stressors.\56\ Underserved communities may
have a compromised ability to cope with or recover from such exposures
due to a range of physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural
factors.\57\ In addition to the demographic and environmental
indicators identified in our screening level analysis, the proximity of
underserved communities to the border with Mexico and the resulting
exposure to levels of ozone that exceed the NAAQS contributes to the
potential EJ concerns faced by communities in the Imperial
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4 (June 2016).
\57\ Id. section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If finalized, this proposed action to approve California's
demonstration that the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area would
have attained the standard by the statutory attainment date, but for
emissions emanating from Mexico, would result in the area retaining its
Marginal classification. The area will retain its designation as
nonattainment and continue to implement nonattainment new source
review, but will not be reclassified as ``Moderate'' and the State will
not be required to submit a plan demonstrating attainment or to adopt
additional control measures, consistent with CAA section 179B(b).\58\
As a result, the EPA will not be requiring the State to impose
additional control measures for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS that
could serve to reduce ozone exposure in the area, even if they would
not result in actual attainment of the NAAQS due to the influx of ozone
and its precursors from Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ In light of the overall health and clean air objectives of
the CAA, the EPA encourages the State and District to continue to
evaluate and, where feasible, implement measures that would further
reduce emissions and contribute to improved air quality in the
Imperial nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we note that the Imperial County nonattainment area is
also designated nonattainment, and classified as Moderate, for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires states to implement
RACM/RACT level emission controls for ozone nonattainment areas
classified Moderate and above. In 2020, the EPA determined that
California's Moderate area nonattainment plan for the Imperial County
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides for the
implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1112(c).\59\ Because California has already implemented RACM/
RACT level controls for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the area,
we think that this will serve to limit potential impacts from the EPA's
approval of the 179(B)(b) demonstration for purposes of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 85 FR 11817 (February 27, 2020), 85 FR 8181 (February 13,
2020), and 86 FR 49248 (September 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA notes that there are other efforts underway to
reduce environmental burden along the U.S.-Mexico border, including
Imperial County. The United States and Mexico
[[Page 50040]]
have long recognized the environmental challenges in the border region
and share the goal of protecting the environment and public health in
the U.S.-Mexico border region. The two nations have been working
together outside the framework of the SIP process to make progress
towards those goals.
The U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program (``Border 2025'') is a five-
year (2021-2025) binational effort designed ``to protect the
environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region,
consistent with the principles of sustainable development.'' \60\
Border 2025 is the latest of a series of cooperative efforts
implemented under the 1983 La Paz Agreement. It builds on previous
binational efforts (i.e., the Border 2012 and Border 2020 Environmental
Programs), emphasizing regional, bottom-up approaches for decision
making, priority setting, and project implementation to address the
environmental and public health problems in the border region. As in
the previous two border programs, Border 2025 encourages meaningful
participation from communities and local stakeholders and establishes
guiding principles that will support the mission statement, ensure
consistency among all aspects of the Border 2025 Program, and continue
successful elements of previous binational environmental programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Border 2025: United States--Mexico Environmental
Program,'' included in this docket and accessible at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/final_us_mx_border_2025_final_may_6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border 2025 sets out four strategic goals, including the reduction
of air pollution and the improvement of water quality, to address
environmental and public health challenges in the border region. Within
the goals are specific objectives that identify actions that will be
taken in support of the program's mission. The goals and objectives
were determined binationally between the EPA and the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico (SEMARNAT) to address
ongoing environmental challenges, and considered input from state and
tribal partners. The ``California[hyphen]Baja California 2021-2023
Border 2025 Action Plan'' lists and describes the projects that are
being undertaken to achieve the goals and objectives of Border 2025,
along with the target outputs, expected results, and status of each
action.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The ``California[hyphen]Baja California 2021-2023 Border
2025 Action Plan'' is included in the docket for this action and is
accessible online at https://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/region-9-action-plansplanes-de-accion-de-region-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the ongoing efforts under the Border 2025 agreement,
in 2020, the EPA awarded the Imperial County APCD $3,350,371 to pave
3.5 miles of residential alleyways in the downtown core of the City of
Calexico to reduce PM2.5 and PM10.\62\ While the
resulting reductions of particulate emissions will not reduce ozone
levels, it should relieve some of the cumulative burden on
disadvantaged communities in the Imperial ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ A list of the Targeted Airshed Grants the EPA awarded in
fiscal years 2015-2020 is accessible online at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/targeted-airshed-grant-recipients.
These EPA grants support projects to reduce emissions in areas
facing the highest levels of ground-level ozone and fine particulate
matter, or PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is committed to environmental justice for all people, and
we acknowledge that the Imperial County nonattainment area includes
minority and low income populations that could be affected by this
action. As discussed in Section I.B. of this document, the District and
State have met the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal. Notwithstanding the purpose of this action
determining that the Imperial ozone nonattainment area would have
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for emissions transported from
Mexico, the EPA is working to reduce disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate change impacts in the Imperial
County nonattainment area by other means, including those described in
this section.
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this document, we are proposing to
determine, consistent with our evaluation of the ``Imperial County
Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Analysis for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' that the Imperial County nonattainment area would have
attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date of
August 3, 2021, but for emissions emanating from outside the United
States. If finalized, the EPA's obligation under section 181(b)(2)(A)
to determine whether the area attained by its attainment date will no
longer apply and the area will not be reclassified. The area will
remain designated nonattainment and thus the State will continue to
comply with applicable requirements for a Marignal ozone nonattainment
area.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until September 14, 2022 and will consider comments before taking final
action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rulemaking does not impose any new information collection
burden under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management
and Budget. This action proposes to find that the Imperial County
Marginal ozone nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating from
outside the United States. Thus, the proposed action does not establish
any new information collection burden that has not already been
identified and approved in the EPA's information collection
request.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ On April 30, 2018, the OMB approved the EPA's request for
renewal of the previously approved information collection request
(ICR). The renewed request expired on April 30, 2021, 3 years after
the approval date (see OMB Control Number 2060-0695 and ICR
Reference Number 201801-2060-003 for EPA ICR No. 2347.03). On April
30, 2021, the OMB published the final 30-day Notice (86 FR 22959)
for the ICR renewal titled ``Implementation of the 8-Hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (Renewal)'' (see OMB Control
Number 2060-0695 and ICR Reference No: 202104-2060-004 for EPA ICR
Number 2347.04). The ICR renewal is pending OMB final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed
determination that Imperial County would have attained the 2015 ozone
NAAQS but for international emissions does not in and of itself create
any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. Instead, this
rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does not directly
regulate any entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small
[[Page 50041]]
governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states and tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The division of responsibility between the Federal
Government and the states for the purposes of implementing the NAAQS is
established under the CAA.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
The EPA has identified two tribal areas located within the Imperial
County nonattainment area, which is the subject of this action
proposing to determine the area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but for
emissions emanating from outside the United States. The EPA has invited
the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians to engage in government to government
consultation in advance of our proposed action and intends to continue
to communicate with the tribes as the Agency moves forward in
developing a final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA's
evaluation of this issue is contained in the section of the preamble
titled ``Environmental Justice Considerations.''
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 4, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-17190 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
