Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California, 27976-27979 [2020-09731]

Download as PDF 27976 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS from the Commission’s margin requirements applicable to uncleared swaps. This rule is premised on the same policy of international comity referenced in today’s proposed exemption from the swap clearing requirement. I would like to highlight that the EIB, EIF, and the other international financial institutions referenced by the proposed exemption from the swap clearing requirement, as well as sovereign entities and central banks, are already exempted from the Commission’s margin requirements for uncleared swaps pursuant to Commission regulations.13 Finally, I am pleased that the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight is today extending previously granted, timelimited no-action relief to the ESM,14 pending the effective date of today’s final rule. Appendix 4—Statement of Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz I support issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘Proposal’’) to codify certain exemptions from the swap clearing requirement that currently exist through Commission guidance or staff no action relief. Each of the proposed exemptions is consistent with longstanding Commission policy and the Commission’s experience in implementing the swap clearing requirement over the past eight years. Codifying these exemptions will provide certainty and transparency for market participants. First, the Proposal would codify in rule text a list of foreign central banks, sovereign entities at the national level, and international institutions that are currently excepted from the clearing requirement through no action relief or guidance. This codification would provide regulatory certainty that executing the swaps on an uncleared basis will not run afoul of our rules. This certainty benefits not only to the named entities, but also to their counterparties, most of which are swap dealers registered with the Commission. As described in the preamble to the Proposal, it has been the Commission’s policy since the adoption of the clearing requirement to exempt these institutions due to considerations of international comity, the reduced risks arising from swaps entered into by these institutions, and the public purposes for which these institutions enter into such swaps. Second, the Proposal includes a supplemental proposal making technical changes to a 2018 Commission 13 CFTC 14 CFTC regulation 23.151. Letter 19–22 (Oct. 16, 2019). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 May 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 proposal. This proposal would provide clearing exemptions for (i) certain interest rate swaps entered into by community development financial institutions to hedge or mitigate commercial risks, and (ii) for swaps entered into by bank or savings and loan holding companies that each have no more than $10 billion in consolidated assets if they enter into the swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risks. This supplemental proposal also would codify relief from the clearing requirement currently provided by two no-action letters. Commodity Exchange Act section 2(h)(7)(A) in essence excludes from the clearing requirement banks and savings associations with less than $10 billion in assets to the extent determined by the Commission. Since the Commission has already provided the exemption to individual banks and savings associations,1 it makes sense to codify this exemption for holding companies for those entities that also have no more than $10 billion in consolidated assets. As described in the preamble, swap data repository data indicates that over the past several years the number and scope of such swaps entered into by these institutions that would be included within these exemptions has been relatively limited. I commend the staff of the Division of Clearing and Risk for this well developed and drafted Proposal. Providing certainty to market participants is important and the Proposal would do so for the entities involved in the exempted swaps. [FR Doc. 2020–08603 Filed 5–11–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0318; FRL–10009– 28–Region 9] Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ‘‘Agency’’) proposes to approve through parallel processing a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for the 2006 fine 1 See PO 00000 Regulation 50.50(d). Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in the San Joaquin Valley Serious nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve through parallel processing the ‘‘Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for PM2.5 Standards in the San Joaquin Valley’’ (‘‘PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision’’ or ‘‘Revision’’). We also propose to find that the State has complied with this commitment. Any comments must arrive by June 11, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0318, 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. DATES: Table of Contents I. Background II. Completeness Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision III. Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision IV. Review of Whether the State has Met the Proposed Revised Commitment V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM 12MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS I. Background On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5) by lowering the level from 65 micrograms (mg) per cubic meter (m3) to 35 mg/m3.1 The 24-hour standards are based on a three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. The EPA established these standards after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective December 14, 2009, the EPA finalized initial air quality designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the three-year periods of 2005–2007 and 2006–2008.2 The EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.3 On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San Joaquin Valley as a Moderate nonattainment area for these NAAQS, thereby establishing December 31, 2015, as the latest permissible attainment date for the area under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA.4 Effective February 19, 2016, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley as a Serious nonattainment area for these NAAQS based on a determination that the area could not practicably attain the NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date.5 On August 31, 2016, the EPA approved the State’s demonstration that it was impracticable for the San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date and related plan elements addressing the Moderate area requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.6 As part of that action, the EPA approved enforceable commitments by the SJVUAPCD 7 to take specific actions with respect to identified control measures (‘‘rulemaking commitments’’) and to achieve specific amounts of direct PM2.5 emission reductions from these or 1 71 Federal Register (FR) 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. 2 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 3 Id. (codified at 40 CFR 81.305). 4 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 5 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016). 6 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016). 7 The District works cooperatively with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in preparing attainment plans. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 May 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 substitute measures (‘‘aggregate tonnage commitment’’) by 2017. Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, the San Joaquin Valley became subject to a new statutory attainment date no later than the end of the tenth calendar year following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019). CAA section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to extend the attainment date for a Serious area by up to five years if several statutory conditions are met, including the condition that the State has complied with all requirements and commitments applicable to the area in its implementation plan. On March 27, 2020, the EPA proposed action on portions of two SIP submissions submitted by CARB to address the Serious nonattainment area plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.8 Specifically, the EPA proposed to act on those portions of the following two SIP submissions that pertain to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS: The ‘‘2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,’’ adopted by the SJVUAPCD on November 15, 2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019 (‘‘2018 PM2.5 Plan’’); and the ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,’’ adopted by CARB on October 25, 2018 (‘‘Valley State SIP Strategy’’). We refer to the relevant portions of these SIP submissions collectively as the ‘‘SJV PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan.’’ The SJV PM2.5 Plan addresses the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and includes a request under CAA section 188(e) for an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the area for these NAAQS. As part of that action, the EPA proposed to grant the State’s request for extension of the Serious area attainment date from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, based on a proposed conclusion that the State has satisfied the requirements for such extensions in section 188(e) of the Act. The EPA noted, however, that the Agency might reconsider this proposal or deny California’s request to extend the attainment date if new information or public comments were to cause the EPA to conclude that the requested extension would not be consistent with the requirements of the Act.9 Among other things, the EPA proposed to find that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 8 85 FR 17382 (March 27, 2020); the public comment period closed on April 27, 2020. 9 85 FR 17382, 17419. PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 27977 or ‘‘District’’) had satisfied its prior rulemaking commitments and its aggregate tonnage commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.10 With respect to the District’s aggregate tonnage commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, the District stated in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that its commitment had been achieved through amendments to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’), which it adopted in 2014.11 Similarly, in a letter to the EPA, CARB pointed to an analysis of emissions reductions in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report as demonstrating compliance with the commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions.12 Based on this analysis, the EPA proposed to find that the District has complied with the aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017.13 However, the EPA also noted that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan included updated emissions inventories for the residential wood burning source category, which differed from previous inventory estimates and showed a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season direct PM2.5 emissions from wood burning devices between 2013 and 2017.14 We explained that: This difference between the emission reductions projected in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission reductions reflected in the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan appears to be due to an update to emissions inventory methods in 2015–2016. The updated methodology indicates that emissions from this source category are lower than emissions as calculated by the methodology used to develop the emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The updated methodology is based on a 2014 survey of San Joaquin Valley residents, which provided more representative data regarding fuel usage rates and the number of wood burning devices in use in the District.15 In light of the differences between the inventories used as a basis for the commitment and the inventories in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the EPA sought comment as to whether the State and 10 Id. at 17407–17409. PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6–5 to 6–6. 12 Letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, 2–3. 13 88 FR 17382, 17409. 14 85 FR 17382, 17409. See also 2018 PM 2.5 Plan, App. C, C–257 and letter dated August 12, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, transmitting ‘‘Attachment: Supplemental Information and Clarifications to 2017 Quantitative Milestones.’’ 15 85 FR 17382, 17409 (internal citations omitted). 11 2018 E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM 12MYP1 27978 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS District had met the commitment to achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 2017. In response to the proposed finding and request for comment, CARB developed the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision. The purpose of this revision is to revise the State’s aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to reflect the updated inventories submitted in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. II. Completeness Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision On April 24, 2020, CARB submitted the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision for parallel processing.16 Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent state and federal proposed rulemaking actions.17 Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to the EPA before conducting its public hearing and completing its public comment process under state law. The EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking under federal law. In some cases, the EPA publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its own public hearing and public comment process. The state and the EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal action on the initial SIP submission from the state. If, after completing its public comment process and after the EPA’s public comment process has run, the state materially changes its final SIP submission to EPA from the initial proposed submission, the EPA evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another notice of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to proceed to taking final action on its proposed action and describe the state’s changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the state formally adopts and submits its final submission to the EPA. Section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that if the EPA has not affirmatively determined a SIP submission to be complete or incomplete, it will become complete by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA’s SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 16 Letter dated April 24, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 17 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 May 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA has reviewed the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision and finds that it fulfills the completeness criteria of Appendix V, with the exception of the requirements of paragraphs 2.1(e)–2.1(h), which do not apply to plans submitted for parallel processing. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP submission to the EPA. To meet this requirement, a state’s SIP submission must include evidence that the state provided adequate public notice and an opportunity for a public hearing, consistent with the EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. However, because the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision was submitted for parallel processing, it is exempt from this requirement at the time of initial submission to the EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V Section 2.3.1. CARB and the District are required to meet these procedural criteria during the parallel processing period, and prior to adopting and submitting the final SIP submission to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate whether the final submission meets these requirements at the time of any final action on the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision. III. Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision In the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, CARB seeks to revise the 2012 PM2.5 Plan commitment to achieve 24hour average, aggregate emission reductions of 1.9 tpd by 2017 by replacing it with a commitment to achieve 24-hour average, aggregate emission reductions of 0.86 tpd by 2017 based on the emissions inventories developed for and used in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.18 CARB states that the updated inventory reflects real decreases in residential wood burning emissions and relies on its clarifying letter of February 4, 2020, to the EPA that described how CARB updated such emissions estimates as part of its routine 18 PM 2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 4–5. Neither the 2012 PM2.5 Plan nor the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision expressly states whether this commitment is based on an annual or winter-season average. Because the emissions inventories on which CARB proposes to base the revised commitment are winter-season averages, we interpret the revised commitment of 0.86 tpd to be a winter-season average. We consider this to be an appropriate basis for the commitment because ambient PM2.5 concentrations are typically highest during the winter season (defined as November through April). PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 emissions inventory improvement process using the latest data.19 Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.20 In this instance, the emissions reductions associated with the 2012 PM2.5 Plan aggregate commitment were not required to occur until after the Moderate area attainment deadline and were therefore not part of the control strategy at issue in that action.21 Accordingly, the EPA approved this commitment in order to strengthen the SIP, rather than to meet any CAA requirement. For this reason, the revision of this commitment from 1.9 tpd to 0.86 tpd would not interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. We therefore propose to find that approval of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision would comply with CAA section 110(l). IV. Review of Whether the State has Met the Proposed Revised Commitment As noted above, the more recent inventories that CARB and the District presented in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicate a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season direct PM2.5 emissions from wood burning devices between 2013 and 2017.22 In the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, CARB explains that this reduction ‘‘does not include any reductions from incentives.’’ 23 In other words, the 0.86 tpd reduction resulted directly from the 2014 revision to Rule 4901 and therefore complies with the State’s commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, as revised by the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, ‘‘to adopt and implement specific rules and measures’’ to achieve aggregate winter season direct PM2.5 emissions reductions of 0.86 tpd. Accordingly, we propose that the State has met the 0.86 tpd commitment by implementation of the 2014 amendment to Rule 4901 through 2017. V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section 19 PM 2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 5 and Appendix A (copy of letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Director, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX). See also 85 FR 17832, 17408–17409. 20 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 21 See 81 FR 59876, 59893, footnote 140. 22 2018 PM 2.5 Plan, App. C, C–257. 23 PM 2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 5. E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM 12MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California SIP, the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision. We also propose to find that District has complied with its revised aggregate commitment of 0.86 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions reductions by 2017. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state plans as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 May 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 1, 2020. John Busterud, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2020–09731 Filed 5–11–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2003–0010; FRL–10008– 93–Region 7] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete 117 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS) located in Omaha, Nebraska, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 27979 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, determined that all appropriate Response Actions under CERCLA were completed at the identified parcels. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA. This partial deletion pertains to 117 residential parcels. The remaining parcels will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– SFUND–2003–0010, by one of the following methods: • https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line 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, 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. • Email: hagenmaier.elizabeth@ epa.gov or houston.pamela@epa.gov. • Mail: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 Attention: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, SUPR Division or Pamela Houston, ECO Office. • Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are only accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday–Friday excluding Federal holidays and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM 12MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27976-27979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318; FRL-10009-28-Region 9]


Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area 
Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') 
proposes to approve through parallel processing a state implementation 
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean 
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2006 fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 
or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley Serious nonattainment area. 
Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve through parallel processing 
the ``Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for 
PM2.5 Standards in the San Joaquin Valley'' 
(``PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision'' or ``Revision''). We 
also propose to find that the State has complied with this commitment.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0318, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Completeness Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment 
Revision
III. Review of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision
IV. Review of Whether the State has Met the Proposed Revised 
Commitment
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 27977]]

I. Background

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS 
for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([micro]m) in 
diameter (PM2.5) by lowering the level from 65 micrograms 
([micro]g) per cubic meter (m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.\1\ The 24-hour 
standards are based on a three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour 
PM2.5 concentrations. The EPA established these standards 
after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies 
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures 
to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 Federal Register (FR) 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 
50.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective December 14, 
2009, the EPA finalized initial air quality designations for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the 
three-year periods of 2005-2007 and 2006-2008.\2\ The EPA designated 
the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San 
Joaquin Valley as a Moderate nonattainment area for these NAAQS, 
thereby establishing December 31, 2015, as the latest permissible 
attainment date for the area under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA.\4\ 
Effective February 19, 2016, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin 
Valley as a Serious nonattainment area for these NAAQS based on a 
determination that the area could not practicably attain the NAAQS by 
the December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
    \3\ Id. (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
    \4\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
    \5\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2016, the EPA approved the State's demonstration that 
it was impracticable for the San Joaquin Valley to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 Moderate area 
attainment date and related plan elements addressing the Moderate area 
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ As part of 
that action, the EPA approved enforceable commitments by the SJVUAPCD 
\7\ to take specific actions with respect to identified control 
measures (``rulemaking commitments'') and to achieve specific amounts 
of direct PM2.5 emission reductions from these or substitute 
measures (``aggregate tonnage commitment'') by 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
    \7\ The District works cooperatively with the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) in preparing attainment plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 
area, the San Joaquin Valley became subject to a new statutory 
attainment date no later than the end of the tenth calendar year 
following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019). CAA section 188(e) 
authorizes the EPA to extend the attainment date for a Serious area by 
up to five years if several statutory conditions are met, including the 
condition that the State has complied with all requirements and 
commitments applicable to the area in its implementation plan.
    On March 27, 2020, the EPA proposed action on portions of two SIP 
submissions submitted by CARB to address the Serious nonattainment area 
plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
San Joaquin Valley.\8\ Specifically, the EPA proposed to act on those 
portions of the following two SIP submissions that pertain to the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS: The ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 
2012 PM2.5 Standards,'' adopted by the SJVUAPCD on November 
15, 2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019 (``2018 PM2.5 
Plan''); and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State 
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted by CARB on 
October 25, 2018 (``Valley State SIP Strategy''). We refer to the 
relevant portions of these SIP submissions collectively as the ``SJV 
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan.'' The SJV PM2.5 Plan 
addresses the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and includes a 
request under CAA section 188(e) for an extension of the Serious area 
attainment date for the area for these NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 85 FR 17382 (March 27, 2020); the public comment period 
closed on April 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of that action, the EPA proposed to grant the State's 
request for extension of the Serious area attainment date from December 
31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, based on a proposed conclusion that the 
State has satisfied the requirements for such extensions in section 
188(e) of the Act. The EPA noted, however, that the Agency might 
reconsider this proposal or deny California's request to extend the 
attainment date if new information or public comments were to cause the 
EPA to conclude that the requested extension would not be consistent 
with the requirements of the Act.\9\ Among other things, the EPA 
proposed to find that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') had satisfied its prior 
rulemaking commitments and its aggregate tonnage commitment in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan and Supplement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 85 FR 17382, 17419.
    \10\ Id. at 17407-17409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the District's aggregate tonnage commitment to 
achieve 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2017, the District stated 
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that its commitment had been achieved 
through amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 
Burning Heaters''), which it adopted in 2014.\11\ Similarly, in a 
letter to the EPA, CARB pointed to an analysis of emissions reductions 
in the 2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report as demonstrating compliance with the 
commitment to achieve 1.9 tpd of emissions reductions.\12\ Based on 
this analysis, the EPA proposed to find that the District has complied 
with the aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 
achieve total emission reductions of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 
by 2017.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Ch. 6, 6-5 to 6-6.
    \12\ Letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Kurt 
Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Air 
and Radiation Division Director, EPA Region IX, 2-3.
    \13\ 88 FR 17382, 17409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the EPA also noted that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan 
included updated emissions inventories for the residential wood burning 
source category, which differed from previous inventory estimates and 
showed a 0.86 tpd reduction in winter season direct PM2.5 
emissions from wood burning devices between 2013 and 2017.\14\ We 
explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 85 FR 17382, 17409. See also 2018 PM2.5 Plan, 
App. C, C-257 and letter dated August 12, 2019, from Richard W. 
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, transmitting ``Attachment: 
Supplemental Information and Clarifications to 2017 Quantitative 
Milestones.''

    This difference between the emission reductions projected in the 
2014 Rule 4901 Staff Report and the emission reductions reflected in 
the inventories in Appendix C of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan 
appears to be due to an update to emissions inventory methods in 
2015-2016. The updated methodology indicates that emissions from 
this source category are lower than emissions as calculated by the 
methodology used to develop the emissions inventory in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan. The updated methodology is based on a 2014 
survey of San Joaquin Valley residents, which provided more 
representative data regarding fuel usage rates and the number of 
wood burning devices in use in the District.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 85 FR 17382, 17409 (internal citations omitted).

    In light of the differences between the inventories used as a basis 
for the commitment and the inventories in the 2018 PM2.5 
Plan, the EPA sought comment as to whether the State and

[[Page 27978]]

District had met the commitment to achieve total emission reductions of 
1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 2017. In response to the proposed 
finding and request for comment, CARB developed the PM2.5 
Prior Commitment Revision. The purpose of this revision is to revise 
the State's aggregate commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 
reflect the updated inventories submitted in the 2018 PM2.5 
Plan.

II. Completeness Review of the PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Prior 
Commitment Revision

    On April 24, 2020, CARB submitted the PM2.5 Prior 
Commitment Revision for parallel processing.\16\ Parallel processing 
refers to a process that utilizes concurrent state and federal proposed 
rulemaking actions.\17\ Generally, the state submits a copy of the 
proposed regulation or other revisions to the EPA before conducting its 
public hearing and completing its public comment process under state 
law. The EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice 
of proposed rulemaking under federal law. In some cases, the EPA 
publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register 
during the same time frame that the state is holding its own public 
hearing and public comment process. The state and the EPA then provide 
for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and 
federal action on the initial SIP submission from the state. If, after 
completing its public comment process and after the EPA's public 
comment process has run, the state materially changes its final SIP 
submission to EPA from the initial proposed submission, the EPA 
evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another notice 
of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to proceed to 
taking final action on its proposed action and describe the state's 
changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking action by 
the EPA will occur only after the state formally adopts and submits its 
final submission to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated April 24, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Deputy 
Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \17\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine 
whether a SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This 
section also provides that if the EPA has not affirmatively determined 
a SIP submission to be complete or incomplete, it will become complete 
by operation of law six months after the date of submission. The EPA's 
SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The 
EPA has reviewed the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision and 
finds that it fulfills the completeness criteria of Appendix V, with 
the exception of the requirements of paragraphs 2.1(e)-2.1(h), which do 
not apply to plans submitted for parallel processing.
    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP submission to the EPA. To 
meet this requirement, a state's SIP submission must include evidence 
that the state provided adequate public notice and an opportunity for a 
public hearing, consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 
40 CFR 51.102. However, because the PM2.5 Prior Commitment 
Revision was submitted for parallel processing, it is exempt from this 
requirement at the time of initial submission to the EPA, pursuant to 
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V Section 2.3.1. CARB and the District are 
required to meet these procedural criteria during the parallel 
processing period, and prior to adopting and submitting the final SIP 
submission to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate whether the final 
submission meets these requirements at the time of any final action on 
the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision.

III. Review of the PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Prior Commitment Revision

    In the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, CARB seeks to 
revise the 2012 PM2.5 Plan commitment to achieve 24-hour 
average, aggregate emission reductions of 1.9 tpd by 2017 by replacing 
it with a commitment to achieve 24-hour average, aggregate emission 
reductions of 0.86 tpd by 2017 based on the emissions inventories 
developed for and used in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\18\ CARB 
states that the updated inventory reflects real decreases in 
residential wood burning emissions and relies on its clarifying letter 
of February 4, 2020, to the EPA that described how CARB updated such 
emissions estimates as part of its routine emissions inventory 
improvement process using the latest data.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 4-5. Neither 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan nor the PM2.5 Prior 
Commitment Revision expressly states whether this commitment is 
based on an annual or winter-season average. Because the emissions 
inventories on which CARB proposes to base the revised commitment 
are winter-season averages, we interpret the revised commitment of 
0.86 tpd to be a winter-season average. We consider this to be an 
appropriate basis for the commitment because ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations are typically highest during the 
winter season (defined as November through April).
    \19\ PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 5 and Appendix 
A (copy of letter dated February 4, 2020 from Kurt Karperos, Deputy 
Executive Director, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and 
Radiation Division, EPA Region IX). See also 85 FR 17832, 17408-
17409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP 
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) 
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.\20\ In this instance, 
the emissions reductions associated with the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
aggregate commitment were not required to occur until after the 
Moderate area attainment deadline and were therefore not part of the 
control strategy at issue in that action.\21\ Accordingly, the EPA 
approved this commitment in order to strengthen the SIP, rather than to 
meet any CAA requirement. For this reason, the revision of this 
commitment from 1.9 tpd to 0.86 tpd would not interfere with any 
applicable requirement of the CAA. We therefore propose to find that 
approval of the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision would comply 
with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    \21\ See 81 FR 59876, 59893, footnote 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Review of Whether the State has Met the Proposed Revised Commitment

    As noted above, the more recent inventories that CARB and the 
District presented in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan indicate a 0.86 
tpd reduction in winter season direct PM2.5 emissions from 
wood burning devices between 2013 and 2017.\22\ In the PM2.5 
Prior Commitment Revision, CARB explains that this reduction ``does not 
include any reductions from incentives.'' \23\ In other words, the 0.86 
tpd reduction resulted directly from the 2014 revision to Rule 4901 and 
therefore complies with the State's commitment in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, as revised by the PM2.5 Prior 
Commitment Revision, ``to adopt and implement specific rules and 
measures'' to achieve aggregate winter season direct PM2.5 
emissions reductions of 0.86 tpd. Accordingly, we propose that the 
State has met the 0.86 tpd commitment by implementation of the 2014 
amendment to Rule 4901 through 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. C, C-257.
    \23\ PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section

[[Page 27979]]

110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California 
SIP, the PM2.5 Prior Commitment Revision. We also propose to 
find that District has complied with its revised aggregate commitment 
of 0.86 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions reductions by 2017.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 
for the next 30 days.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state plans as meeting 
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law.
    For these reasons, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Carbon 
monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 1, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-09731 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.