[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