Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Coachella Valley; Extreme Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards, 49815-49817 [2024-12786]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
a Senior Lead Administrative Patent
Judge, a Lead Administrative Patent
Judge, including individuals who serve
in these positions in an acting capacity,
or any other Administrative Patent
Judge who, as part of their duties, serves
as the rating official of one or more
Administrative Patent Judges.
Office means the United States Patent
and Trademark Office.
Panel means the members of the
Board assigned to a particular
proceeding, or an aspect thereof.
Proceeding means an appeal or
contested case under part 41 of this
chapter, or a proceeding under part 42
of this chapter.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
§ 43.3 Limits on Director’s and other
individuals’ involvement in panel decisions.
(a) Prior to issuance of a decision by
a panel, the Director, Deputy Director,
Commissioner for Patents, and
Commissioner for Trademarks shall not
communicate, directly or through
intermediaries, with any member of the
panel regarding the decision.
(b) The prohibition of paragraph (a) of
this section shall not apply to any
individual in paragraph (a) who is a
member of the panel. When sitting as a
member of a panel, the Director or other
individual listed in paragraph (a) is a
coequal member of the panel and
exercises no review authority over the
proceeding prior to the issuance of the
panel’s decision on the merits.
(c) Nothing in this section shall
prevent the Director or delegate from
communicating with a panel as to
resource needs or the procedural status
of any proceeding pending before the
Board.
(d) The Chief Administrative Patent
Judge or delegates of the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge shall
designate panels of the Board on behalf
of the Director. The Chief
Administrative Patent Judge or delegates
of the Chief Administrative Patent Judge
shall only panel or repanel proceedings
in accordance with public Board
paneling guidance. The Director may
issue generally applicable paneling
guidance to be applied to proceedings
before the Board. The Director shall not
direct or otherwise influence the
paneling or repaneling of any specific
proceeding prior to issuance of the
panel decision. When reviewing or
rehearing an issued panel decision, the
Director may direct the repaneling of the
proceeding in a manner consistent with
public Board paneling guidance through
an Order entered into the record.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jun 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 43.4 Limited pre-issuance management
and Office involvement in decisions.
(a) Except as requested pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section or
permitted under paragraph (d) or (e) of
this section, prior to issuance of a
decision by the panel, no Management
Judge or an officer or employee of the
Office external to the Board shall
initiate communication, directly or
through intermediaries, with any
member of a panel regarding the
decision.
(b) Any individual panel member may
request that one or more Management
Judges or an officer or employee of the
Office external to the Board provide
input on a decision prior to issuance.
The choice to request input is optional
and solely within the discretion of an
individual panel member.
(c) It is within the sole discretion of
the panel to adopt any edits,
suggestions, or feedback provided to the
panel by a Management Judge or an
officer or employee of the Office
external to the Board as part of a review
requested under paragraph (b) of this
section. The panel has final authority
and responsibility for the content of a
decision and determines whether and
how to incorporate any feedback
requested under paragraph (b).
(d) The prohibition of paragraph (a) of
this section shall not apply to any
Management Judge who is a member of
the panel. When sitting as a member of
a panel, a Management Judge is a
coequal member of the panel.
(e) Nothing in this section shall
prevent a Management Judge from
communicating with a panel as to
resource needs or the procedural status
of any case pending before the Board.
§ 43.5 Review of decisions by nonManagement Judges.
If the Office establishes procedures
governing the internal circulation and
review of decisions prior to issuance to
one or more designated members of the
Board:
(a) No Management Judge or an officer
or employee external to the Board shall
participate directly or indirectly in any
such review and the reviewing nonManagement Judges shall not discuss
the substance of any circulated decision
with a Management Judge prior to
issuance of the decision, except with a
Management Judge who is a member of
the panel; and
(b) Any edits, suggestions, or feedback
provided to the panel pursuant to such
circulation and review are optional and
in the sole discretion of the panel to
accept. The panel has final authority
and responsibility for the content of a
decision and determines whether and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49815
how to incorporate any feedback
provided.
§ 43.6 Controlling legal authority; no
unwritten or non-public binding policy or
guidance.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of this part, all decisions of the Board
are expected to comport with all
applicable statutes, regulations, binding
case law, and written Office policy and
guidance applicable to Board
proceedings. There shall be no
unwritten Office or Board policy or
guidance that is binding on any panel of
the Board. All written policy and
guidance binding on panels of the Board
shall be made public.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2024–12823 Filed 6–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0448; FRL–11677–
02–R9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
California; Coachella Valley; Extreme
Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve elements of a state
implementation plan (SIP) submittal
from the State of California to meet
Clean Air Act (CAA) Extreme area
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in the Riverside Co.
(Coachella Valley), CA nonattainment
area (‘‘Coachella Valley’’). We are
specifically approving the reasonably
available control measures (RACM)
demonstration and attainment
demonstration and finding the State has
satisfied the clean fuels for boilers
requirement. The EPA previously
proposed to approve these elements in
conjunction with a proposal to approve
the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset
demonstration and the reasonable
further progress (RFP) demonstration for
the Coachella Valley. The EPA intends
to take final action on the area’s VMT
offset demonstration and RFP
demonstration in a future rulemaking.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
49816
DATES:
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
more information on the two submittals
and our evaluation.
This rule is effective July 12,
2024.
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0448. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
a disability who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
ADDRESSES:
Tom
Kelly, Geographic Strategies and
Modeling Section (AIR–2–2), EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972–
3856; or email: kelly.thomasp@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. The EPA’s Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
I. Proposed Action
On April 16, 2024,1 the EPA proposed
to approve portions of the ‘‘Final
Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’
dated December 2020 (‘‘Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’), into the
California SIP, along with the entirety of
a second submittal, the ‘‘VMT Offset
Demonstration.’’ 2 For the Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan, we proposed to
approve all elements of the Plan except
the reasonably available control
technology demonstration, which we
planned to address in subsequent
proposal. Our proposed action contains
1 89
FR 26817.
Air Resources Board, ‘‘Staff Report,
2020 Coachella Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled
Emissions Offset Demonstration,’’ January 22, 2021.
2 California
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jun 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
II. Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received comments from
Air Law for All (ALFA). These
comments addressed the EPA’s
proposed approval of the Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan’s RFP demonstration
and other issues related to
nonattainment planning elements not
addressed in the EPA’s proposal. No
adverse comments were directed at the
EPA’s proposal to approve the Plan’s
RACM demonstration, attainment
demonstration, or the EPA’s proposed
finding that the State has satisfied the
clean fuels or advanced control
technology for boilers requirement. In
this action, the EPA is taking final
action only on these elements of the
Coachella Valley Ozone Plan for which
we received no adverse comment. The
EPA intends to address our proposed
approval of the Plan’s RFP
demonstration and the separately
submitted VMT Offset Demonstration in
a future rulemaking.
III. Environmental Justice
Considerations
This final action will generally be
neutral or not contribute to a reduction
in adverse environmental and health
impacts on all populations in the
Coachella Valley, including people of
color and low-income populations in
the area. At a minimum, the approved
action would not worsen any existing
air quality and is expected to ensure the
area is meeting requirements to attain
air quality standards. Further, there is
no information in the record indicating
that this action is expected to have
disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects
on a particular group of people. In
responding to public concerns about
environmental justice in Eastern
Coachella Valley, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) noted that (1) Assembly Bill
617 funding has reduced pollutant
emissions in Eastern Coachella Valley
by 63.1 tpy of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 7.5
tpy of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC), and 5.3 tpy of diesel particulate
matter,3 and (2) the SCAQMD has
provided $966,667 in energy efficiency
3 Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, p. 9–8.
SCAQMD’s website identifies Assembly Bill 617
Community Air Initiatives as ‘‘community based
efforts that focus on improving air quality and
public health in environmental justice
communities.’’ See https://www.aqmd.gov/nav/
about/initiatives/environmental-justice/ab617-134.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
upgrades, reducing energy costs for
homes within designated environmental
justice areas of Indio and Eastern
Coachella Valley.4 The SCAQMD Final
2016 Air Quality Management Plan,
which included additional information
for the Coachella Valley Ozone Plan
such as more detailed information
regarding emissions inventory
development, also identifies an
Environmental Justice Advisory Group
established to ‘‘advise and assist
SCAQMD in protecting and improving
public health in SCAQMD’s most
impacted communities through the
reduction and prevention of air
pollution.’’ 5
IV. The EPA’s Action
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA, and for the reasons provided in
our April 16, 2024 proposed rule, the
EPA is taking final action to approve
into the California SIP the following
elements of the ‘‘Final Coachella Valley
Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard,’’ dated December 2020
under CAA section 110(k)(3):
• The RACM demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17); and
• The attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12).
We are also finalizing our proposal to
find that the State has satisfied the clean
fuel or advanced control technology for
boilers requirement in CAA section
182(e)(3) for the Coachella Valley for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
These requirements and related parts
of the SIP submittal were evaluated
separately from the RFP demonstration
and the substitution of NOX emissions
reductions for VOC emissions
reductions in the EPA’s April 16, 2024
notice of proposed rulemaking.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve State choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
4 Id.
5 SCAQMD, ‘‘Final 2016 Air Quality Management
Plan,’’ dated March 2017, submitted electronically
by CARB to the EPA on April 27, 2017, p. 9–7.
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
applications of those requirements
would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February. 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Jun 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
However, as described in section III
(Environmental Justice Considerations)
of this document, the District has an
advisory group to address EJ and has
taken prior EJ-focused actions within
the Coachella Valley. The EPA did not
perform an EJ analysis and did not
consider it in this action. Due to the
nature of this action, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of Coachella
Valley. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898, to achieve
environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 12, 2024.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49817
Dated: June 6, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding and reserving paragraph (c)(613),
and adding paragraph (c)(614) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(613) [Reserved]
(614) The following plan was
submitted electronically on December
29, 2020, by the Governor’s designee as
an attachment to a letter dated
December 28, 2020.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
(1) ‘‘South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Final Coachella
Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’ dated
December 2020, except for the sections
titled ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress’’
and ‘‘Supplemental RACT
Demonstration,’’ pages 6–1 through 6–
11.
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–12786 Filed 6–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 240419–0114; RTID 0648–
XE030]
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; 2024 and
2025 Summer Flounder and Scup, and
2024 Black Sea Bass Recreational
Management Measures; Correction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49815-49817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12786]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0448; FRL-11677-02-R9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; Coachella Valley; Extreme Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP)
submittal from the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA)
Extreme area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley),
CA nonattainment area (``Coachella Valley''). We are specifically
approving the reasonably available control measures (RACM)
demonstration and attainment demonstration and finding the State has
satisfied the clean fuels for boilers requirement. The EPA previously
proposed to approve these elements in conjunction with a proposal to
approve the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstration and the
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration for the Coachella
Valley. The EPA intends to take final action on the area's VMT offset
demonstration and RFP demonstration in a future rulemaking.
[[Page 49816]]
DATES: This rule is effective July 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0448. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability 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: Tom Kelly, Geographic Strategies and
Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3856; or email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. The EPA's Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On April 16, 2024,\1\ the EPA proposed to approve portions of the
``Final Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' dated December 2020 (``Coachella Valley Ozone Plan'' or
``Plan''), into the California SIP, along with the entirety of a second
submittal, the ``VMT Offset Demonstration.'' \2\ For the Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan, we proposed to approve all elements of the Plan
except the reasonably available control technology demonstration, which
we planned to address in subsequent proposal. Our proposed action
contains more information on the two submittals and our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 26817.
\2\ California Air Resources Board, ``Staff Report, 2020
Coachella Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset
Demonstration,'' January 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from Air Law for All (ALFA).
These comments addressed the EPA's proposed approval of the Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan's RFP demonstration and other issues related to
nonattainment planning elements not addressed in the EPA's proposal. No
adverse comments were directed at the EPA's proposal to approve the
Plan's RACM demonstration, attainment demonstration, or the EPA's
proposed finding that the State has satisfied the clean fuels or
advanced control technology for boilers requirement. In this action,
the EPA is taking final action only on these elements of the Coachella
Valley Ozone Plan for which we received no adverse comment. The EPA
intends to address our proposed approval of the Plan's RFP
demonstration and the separately submitted VMT Offset Demonstration in
a future rulemaking.
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
This final action will generally be neutral or not contribute to a
reduction in adverse environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the Coachella Valley, including people of color and low-
income populations in the area. At a minimum, the approved action would
not worsen any existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area
is meeting requirements to attain air quality standards. Further, there
is no information in the record indicating that this action is expected
to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people. In responding to
public concerns about environmental justice in Eastern Coachella
Valley, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) noted
that (1) Assembly Bill 617 funding has reduced pollutant emissions in
Eastern Coachella Valley by 63.1 tpy of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), 7.5 tpy of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and 5.3
tpy of diesel particulate matter,\3\ and (2) the SCAQMD has provided
$966,667 in energy efficiency upgrades, reducing energy costs for homes
within designated environmental justice areas of Indio and Eastern
Coachella Valley.\4\ The SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan,
which included additional information for the Coachella Valley Ozone
Plan such as more detailed information regarding emissions inventory
development, also identifies an Environmental Justice Advisory Group
established to ``advise and assist SCAQMD in protecting and improving
public health in SCAQMD's most impacted communities through the
reduction and prevention of air pollution.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, p. 9-8. SCAQMD's website
identifies Assembly Bill 617 Community Air Initiatives as
``community based efforts that focus on improving air quality and
public health in environmental justice communities.'' See https://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/initiatives/environmental-justice/ab617-134.
\4\ Id.
\5\ SCAQMD, ``Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan,'' dated
March 2017, submitted electronically by CARB to the EPA on April 27,
2017, p. 9-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Action
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons
provided in our April 16, 2024 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final
action to approve into the California SIP the following elements of the
``Final Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' dated December 2020 under CAA section 110(k)(3):
The RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17); and
The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(12).
We are also finalizing our proposal to find that the State has
satisfied the clean fuel or advanced control technology for boilers
requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) for the Coachella Valley for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
These requirements and related parts of the SIP submittal were
evaluated separately from the RFP demonstration and the substitution of
NOX emissions reductions for VOC emissions reductions in the
EPA's April 16, 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
[[Page 49817]]
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because applications of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. However, as described in
section III (Environmental Justice Considerations) of this document,
the District has an advisory group to address EJ and has taken prior
EJ-focused actions within the Coachella Valley. The EPA did not perform
an EJ analysis and did not consider it in this action. Due to the
nature of this action, this action is expected to have a neutral to
positive impact on the air quality of Coachella Valley. Consideration
of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898, to achieve environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 2024. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 6, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph
(c)(613), and adding paragraph (c)(614) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(613) [Reserved]
(614) The following plan was submitted electronically on December
29, 2020, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated
December 28, 2020.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) ``South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Coachella
Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' dated
December 2020, except for the sections titled ``Reasonable Further
Progress'' and ``Supplemental RACT Demonstration,'' pages 6-1 through
6-11.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-12786 Filed 6-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P