[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78050-78058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26648]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0534; FRL-10016-98-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans; California; Plumas County; Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve through parallel processing a state implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of California to address Clean Air Act 
(CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2012 annual fine particulate 
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS 
or ``standard'') in the Plumas County Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area (``Portola nonattainment area''). The submitted SIP 
revision is the State's ``Proposed Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Contingency Measure SIP Submittal'' (``Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Revision''), which includes a revised City of Portola ordinance 
regulating PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission sources and the State's 
demonstration that this submission meets the Moderate area contingency 
measure requirement for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the 
Portola nonattainment area. The EPA is also proposing to approve the 
contingency measure element of the Moderate area attainment plan for 
the Portola nonattainment area, as revised and supplemented by the 
Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision. Because the EPA is proceeding 
by parallel processing, the agency is proposing, in the alternative, to 
disapprove the contingency measure element of the Moderate area 
attainment

[[Page 78051]]

plan if the State does not submit the final, adopted PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan Revision in substantially the same form before we take final 
action.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must be received by January 4, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0534 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f0a3138293e2d2c342671353037311f3a2f3e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf9aa1a8b9aebdbca4b6e1a5a0a7a18faabfaee1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, 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 (e.g., audio or video) 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 
additional availability information. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3963 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3a2128392e3d3c243661252027210f2a3f2e61282039">[email protected]</a>.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency 
Measures and Other Control Measures
IV. Completeness Review of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Revision
V. Review of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision
VI. Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On January 15, 2013, the EPA strengthened the primary annual NAAQS 
for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less by 
lowering the level from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) 
to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (``2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS'').\1\ The EPA 
established this standard after considering substantial evidence from 
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are 
associated with exposures to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations above 
these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 78 FR 3086 and 40 CFR 50.18. Unless otherwise noted, all 
references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in this document are to the 
2012 annual NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ codified at 40 CFR 50.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant 
correlations between elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and premature 
mortality. Other important health effects associated with 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, 
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted 
activity days), changes in lung function, and increased respiratory 
symptoms. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and 
children.\2\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be emitted directly into the 
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (``primary PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' 
or ``direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') or can be formed in the atmosphere 
(``secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') as a result of various chemical 
reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur 
oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
    \3\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation 
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The EPA designated and 
classified the Portola nonattainment area as ``Moderate'' nonattainment 
for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards based on ambient 
monitoring data that showed the area was above 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for 
the 2011-2013 monitoring period.\4\ For the 2011-2013 period, the 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value for the Portola area was 12.8 
[micro]g/m\3\ based on monitored readings at the 161 Nevada Street and 
420 Gulling Street monitors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
    \5\ From 2000 through early 2013, the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring site was located at 161 Nevada Street. In 2013, the site 
was relocated to 420 Gulling Street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area includes the City 
of Portola (``Portola''), which has a population of approximately 2,100 
and is located at an elevation of 4,890 feet in an intermountain basin 
isolated by rugged mountains. For a precise description of the 
geographic boundaries of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    Portola averages 20 inches of precipitation annually. From October 
through March the Portola nonattainment area has very cold temperatures 
with an average daily low temperature of approximately 22 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The combination of mountainous terrain, cold temperatures, 
and elevation can cause atmospheric inversions and impair 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> dispersion, especially during the winter.
    The local air district with primary responsibility for developing a 
plan to attain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in this area is 
the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD or 
``District''). The District worked cooperatively with the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) in preparing the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan Revision. Under state law, authority for regulating sources under 
state jurisdiction in the Portola nonattainment area is split between 
the District, which has responsibility for regulating stationary and 
most area sources, and CARB, which has responsibility for regulating 
most mobile sources.
    On February 28, 2017, California submitted the ``Portola Fine 
Particulate Matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) Attainment Plan'' (``Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'' or ``Plan'') to address the CAA's Moderate area 
requirements for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Portola 
nonattainment area. On March 25, 2019, the EPA approved all of the 
Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, except for the contingency measure 
element.\6\ The components of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that 
the EPA approved include the modeled demonstration that the area will 
attain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date, which is December 31, 2021; the State and District 
control strategy for attaining the NAAQS by this date, including all 
reasonably available control measures and control technologies (RACM/
RACT) and additional reasonable measures necessary for expeditious 
attainment; the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and 
related quantitative milestones for the October 15, 2019 and October 
15, 2022 quantitative milestone dates applicable to the area; and the

[[Page 78052]]

motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2019 and 2021.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 84 FR 11208.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the attainment control strategy, the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan relies on ``Ordinance No. 344: An Ordinance of 
the City of Portola, County of Plumas Amending Chapter 15.10 of the 
City of Portola Municipal Code Providing for Regulation of Wood Stoves 
and Fireplaces'' (``City Ordinance No. 344'') to achieve direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions necessary for attainment by the 
December 31, 2021 attainment date. The EPA approved City Ordinance No. 
344 into the SIP on March 5, 2018.\8\ The attainment control strategy 
in the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also relies on an enforceable 
State commitment to implement an incentive grant program called the 
``Greater Portola Woodstove Change-out Program 2016'' (``Wood Stove 
Program'') during the 2016 to 2021 period to fund the replacement of 
uncertified wood stoves with newer, EPA-certified devices and to 
educate residents on proper ways to store and burn wood. The EPA 
approved the Wood Stove Program into the SIP on April 2, 2018.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 83 FR 9213.
    \9\ 83 FR 13871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    City Ordinance No. 344 and the District's Wood Stove Program 
collectively establish most of the recommended program elements 
outlined in the EPA's guidance document entitled ``Strategies for 
Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' \10\ including a wood burning 
curtailment program in section 15.10.060 of City Ordinance No. 344 
(Mandatory Curtailment of Wood Burning Heaters, Wood Burning 
Fireplaces, Wood-Fired Fire Pits and Wood-Fired Cookstoves During 
Stagnant Conditions).\11\ The Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan relies 
primarily on the Wood Stove Program to achieve the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emission reductions necessary for the Portola nonattainment area to 
attain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 2021.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA, ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' 
Publication No. EPA-456/B-13-001, revised March 2013.
    \11\ 83 FR 64774, 64782 (December 18, 2018) (proposed action on 
Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan) and EPA, Region IX, ``Technical 
Support Document for the EPA's Rulemaking for the California State 
Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management 
District, City of Portola Ordinance 344, Wood Stove and Fireplace 
Ordinance,'' July 2017 (``Ordinance 344 TSD''), 6.
    \12\ 83 FR 64774, 64788 (December 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also contains a contingency 
measure element in section VI.B that identifies the wood-burning 
curtailment provision in section 15.10.060 of City Ordinance No. 344 
and a District policy designed to incentivize certain types of wood 
stove change-outs as contingency measures for the 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\13\ The EPA did not act on this element of the 
Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as part of its March 25, 2019 final 
action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 72-74 (section VI.B, 
``Contingency Measure'').
    \14\ 84 FR 11208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of California alleging that the EPA had, among other things, failed to 
take final action either approving or disapproving the contingency 
measure element of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. On February 19, 
2020, the court issued an order directing, inter alia, that the EPA 
``sign a notice of final rulemaking to approve, disapprove, 
conditionally approve, or approve in part and conditionally approve or 
disapprove in part'' the contingency measure element of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, under CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), no later than 
March 1, 2021.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Andrew Wheeler, 
Case No. 3:19-cv-02782-EMC, Order (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision

    On September 9, 2020, the City of Portola adopted ``Ordinance No. 
359, An Ordinance of the City of Portola, County of Plumas Amending 
Chapter 15.10 of the City of Portola Municipal Code Providing for 
Regulation of Wood Stoves and Fireplaces and the Prohibition of the 
Open Burning of Yard Waste'' (``City Ordinance No. 359''). City 
Ordinance No. 359 amends City Ordinance No. 344, as codified in Chapter 
15.10 of the Portola Municipal Code.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NSAQMD, Resolution 2020-09 (October 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, section 15.10.070 (Curtailment Levels and Period) of 
City Ordinance No. 359 contains a contingency measure that revises and 
supplements the contingency measure element of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. City Ordinance No. 359 also contains new 
provisions that ban all open burning of yard waste and debris within 
the City of Portola, with limited exceptions, and renumbers several 
sections of the prior version of this ordinance (City Ordinance No. 
354) without change.\17\ The additional open burning provisions in City 
Ordinance No. 359 are not part of the contingency measure element of 
the Plan. CARB has requested that the EPA entirely replace City 
Ordinance No. 344 in the SIP with City Ordinance No. 359.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ City of Portola, Ordinance No. 359, adopted September 9, 
2020.
    \18\ NSAQMD, Resolution 2020-09 (October 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2020, the District Governing Board adopted City 
Ordinance No. 359 and, through Resolution 2020-09, instructed the 
District to submit City Ordinance No. 359 to CARB for inclusion in the 
SIP.\19\ On October 28, 2020, CARB submitted City Ordinance No. 359, 
together with a document entitled ``Proposed Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan Contingency Measure SIP Submittal,'' October 16, 2020 (hereafter 
``CARB Staff Report''), to the EPA with a request for approval into the 
SIP through the EPA's parallel processing procedures in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V, section 2.3.\20\ We refer to City Ordinance No. 359 and the 
CARB Staff Report together as the ``Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Revision.'' CARB has scheduled the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Revision for a hearing before the CARB Governing Board on November 19, 
2020, and if it is then adopted, CARB will submit the final 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision to the EPA for approval into the 
California SIP.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. Resolution 2020-09 instructs the District to exclude 
paragraph 15.10.060(B) (concerning penalties), section 15.10.100 
(Violations), and section 15.10.110 (Continuing violations--each day 
being a separate violation) from the SIP submission.
    \20\ Letter dated October 28, 2020, from Richard Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region IX, with enclosures. Although both the City and the 
District have adopted City Ordinance No. 359, CARB has not yet 
adopted it.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency 
Measures and Other Control Measures

A. Requirements for Contingency Measures

    Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and the EPA's implementing regulations 
for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements 
Rule''),\22\ each SIP submission for a nonattainment area must include 
contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet 
requirements concerning RFP, fails to meet requirements concerning 
quantitative milestones, or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or 
control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon being 
triggered and that take effect without significant further action by 
the State or the EPA.\23\ The purpose of the contingency measures is to 
continue progress in reducing emissions while a

[[Page 78053]]

state revises its SIP to meet a missed RFP requirement, to meet a 
missed quantitative milestone requirement, or to correct ongoing 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016), codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart Z.
    \23\ 81 FR 58010, 58066 and Addendum, 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, contingency 
measures must be implemented following a determination by the EPA that 
the state has failed: (1) To meet any RFP requirement in the approved 
SIP; (2) to meet any quantitative milestone in the approved SIP; (3) to 
submit a required quantitative milestone report; or (4) to attain the 
applicable PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date.\24\ The contingency measures adopted as part of a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan must consist of control measures for 
the area that are not otherwise required to meet other nonattainment 
plan requirements (e.g., to meet RACM/RACT requirements) and must 
specify the timeframe within which their requirements become effective 
following any of the EPA determinations specified in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a 
specific level of emission reductions that implementation of 
contingency measures must achieve, but EPA guidance recommends that 
contingency measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent 
to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP, calculated as 
the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment 
divided by the number of years from the base year to the attainment 
year. In general, we expect all actions needed to effect full 
implementation of the contingency measures to occur within 60 days 
after the EPA notifies the state of a failure to attain or to meet an 
RFP or quantitative milestone requirement.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 81 FR 58010, 58066. See also General Preamble, 13512, 
13543-13544, and Addendum, 42014-42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 
172(c)(9) that states may rely on existing Federal measures (e.g., 
Federal mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the 
motor vehicle fleet each year) and state or local SIP measures already 
scheduled for implementation that provide emissions reductions in 
excess of those needed to meet any other nonattainment plan 
requirements, such as RACM/RACT, RFP, or expeditious attainment 
requirements. In Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr''), however, the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 
172(c)(9) as allowing for approval of already implemented control 
measures as contingency measures.\26\ The Ninth Circuit concluded that 
contingency measures must be measures that would take effect at the 
time the area fails to make RFP or to attain by the applicable 
attainment date, not before.\27\ Thus, within the geographic 
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on already 
implemented measures to comply with the contingency measure requirement 
under CAA section 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with section 172(c)(9), as interpreted in the Bahr 
decision, a state must develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures 
to be triggered upon a failure to meet an RFP milestone, failure to 
meet requirements concerning quantitative milestones, or failure to 
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date regardless of the 
extent to which already-implemented measures would achieve surplus 
emission reductions beyond those necessary to meet RFP or quantitative 
milestone requirements and beyond those projected to achieve attainment 
of the NAAQS.

B. General Requirements for SIP Control Measures

    SIP control measures and revisions thereto must be enforceable,\28\ 
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment 
and RFP or other CAA requirements,\29\ and must not modify certain SIP 
control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent 
or greater emissions reductions.\30\ Generally, in PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate, SIP control measures must 
also implement RACM, including RACT, and additional reasonable 
measures.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    \29\ CAA section 110(l).
    \30\ CAA section 193.
    \31\ CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 51.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Completeness Review of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision

    On October 28, 2020, CARB submitted the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan Revision with a request that the EPA approve the submission into 
the SIP through the parallel processing procedures in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V, section 2.3. Parallel processing refers to a process that 
utilizes concurrent state and Federal proposed rulemaking actions. 
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 the 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 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 
EPA has reviewed the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 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 Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
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

[[Page 78054]]

to adopting and submitting the final SIP submission to the EPA. The EPA 
will determine whether the final submission meets these requirements at 
the time of any final action on the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision.

V. Review of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision

A. Revised Contingency Measure Element of Portola PM2.5 Plan

    The contingency measure element in section VI.B of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as submitted February 28, 2017, discusses two 
potential contingency measures for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS: (1) 
The mandatory wood-burning curtailment provision in section 15.10.060 
of SIP-approved City Ordinance No. 344; and (2) a District ``policy'' 
to incentivize only certain types of wood stove change-outs following a 
determination by the District that the area will not meet the 2019 RFP 
emission target.\32\ The Plan indicates that the District identified 
these measures as potential contingency measures because they are not 
accounted for in the regional attainment demonstration modeling for the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 72-74 (section VI.B, 
``Contingency Measure''). The EPA did not act on the contingency 
measure element of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as part of its 
March 25, 2019 final action (84 FR 11208).
    \33\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mandatory curtailment provision in SIP-approved City Ordinance 
No. 344 becomes effective January 1, 2021, and will prohibit the use of 
wood burning heaters, wood burning fireplaces, wood-fired fire pits and 
wood-fired cookstoves within city limits whenever the District declares 
a mandatory curtailment during the months of January, February, 
November, and December, unless it is an approved and currently 
registered EPA-certified wood burning heater.\34\ The District will 
declare a mandatory curtailment whenever it determines that the 24-hour 
average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration may exceed 30 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 
given day and that adverse meteorological conditions are expected to 
persist.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ City Ordinance No. 344, section 15.10.060.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District ``policy'' to incentivize only certain types of wood 
stove change-outs is not associated with a specific control measure. 
Section VI.B of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan states that if the 
District estimates, by October 31, 2018, that the area will not meet 
the 2019 RFP emission target, the District will only incentivize the 
replacement of older wood stoves with pellet stoves, propane stoves, or 
wood stoves meeting the ``Step 2'' emission limits in the EPA's new 
source performance standards (NSPS) for wood heating devices.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    City Ordinance No. 359 contains a new contingency measure that 
revises and supplements the contingency measure element of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\37\ The new provision, in section 15.10.070 of 
City Ordinance No. 359, would strengthen the mandatory curtailment 
provision in SIP-approved City Ordinance No. 344 and would become 
effective within 60 days after the EPA makes any of the four 
determinations listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).\38\ Specifically, the 
mandatory curtailment provision in section 15.10.070 of City Ordinance 
No. 359 would prohibit the use of wood burning heaters, wood burning 
fireplaces, wood-fired fire pits, and wood-fired cookstoves within city 
limits whenever the District declares a mandatory curtailment during 
the months of September through April, unless it is an approved and 
currently registered EPA-certified wood burning heater.\39\ The 
District would declare a mandatory curtailment whenever it determines 
that the 24-hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration may exceed 20 
[mu]g/m\3\ on a given day and adverse meteorological conditions are 
expected to persist.\40\ CARB estimates that, if triggered, the 
requirements in section 15.10.070 of City Ordinance No. 359 would 
achieve reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions of 0.0024 tons 
per day (tpd) in 2022.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Upon the EPA's final approval of City Ordinance No. 359, 
this ordinance (excluding paragraph 15.10.060(B) and sections 
15.10.100 and 15.10.110) will entirely replace City Ordinance No. 
344 in the SIP. NSAQMD, Resolution 2020-09 (October 26, 2020), 4 
(para. 9).
    \38\ City Ordinance No. 359, section 15.10.070.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ CARB Staff Report, 9 (Table 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB Staff Report contains the State's quantification of 
additional direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions estimated to be 
achieved in the Portola nonattainment area in 2022, the year after the 
December 31, 2021, attainment date applicable to the Portola 
nonattainment area. CARB attributes these additional emission 
reductions to ongoing implementation of the Wood Stove Program and 
several other control measures and programs that will achieve 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions beyond those emission reductions 
necessary for attainment by the December 31, 2021 attainment date, 
including increased participation in a voluntary curtailment program 
outside of the City of Portola and the District's disbursement of 2019 
Targeted Airshed Grant funds to weatherize 30 homes in the Portola 
nonattainment area.\42\ CARB estimates that the emission reductions 
that will result from implementation of these other measures and 
programs, together with the emission reductions that would result from 
implementation of the contingency measure in City Ordinance No. 359, 
will achieve a total of 0.0087 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
reductions in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CARB Staff Report, 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional Revisions in City Ordinance No. 359

    The District implements open burning requirements in NSAQMD rules 
300--317 that apply to a variety of area sources such as agricultural 
burning, forest burning, range improvement, and residences.\43\ Neither 
these rules nor City Ordinance No. 344, however, restrict the open 
burning of yard waste. City Ordinance No. 359 contains a new 
prohibition on the open burning of yard waste, related definitions, and 
limited exemptions. These provisions are not part of the contingency 
measure element of City Ordinance No. 359 but supplement the existing 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> control strategy in the Portola nonattainment area. 
Specifically, City Ordinance No. 359 contains the following new 
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The EPA approved NSAQMD rules 300 to 317 into the SIP on 
September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48480) and August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45170).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Definitions of the terms ``debris,'' ``open burning,'' 
``recreational fire,'' and ``yard waste'' (section 15.10.020);
    <bullet> A provision that bans all open burning of yard waste and 
debris within Portola, except as otherwise authorized in section 
15.10.026 (section 15.10.025); and
    <bullet> Provisions to exempt three types of burning activities 
from the ban on open burning: Certain open outdoor fires used only for 
cooking or for recreation, ``training burns'' permitted in advance by 
the Fire Chief and the District, and certain health- and safety-related 
burning activities for which the Fire Chief and the District have 
issued special burn permits (section 15.10.026).
    City Ordinance No. 359 would also renumber the following 
provisions: Section 15.10.080 (Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler Installation 
Prohibited), located at section 15.10.070 in City Ordinance No. 344; 
section 15.10.090 (Wood Stove Retailers/Contractors Required to Provide 
Educational Materials), located at section 15.10.080 in City Ordinance 
No. 344; and numerous definitions in section 15.10.020. These 
renumbering revisions would not affect the substance of these 
provisions.

[[Page 78055]]

C. EPA Evaluation

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA and EPA regulations require states to 
include contingency measures in nonattainment area plans to address 
potential failure to achieve RFP milestones, failure to meet 
requirements concerning quantitative milestones, and failure to attain 
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For purposes of evaluating 
the contingency measure element of the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Revision, we find it useful to distinguish between contingency measures 
to address potential failure to attain the NAAQS (``attainment 
contingency measures'') and contingency measures to address potential 
failure to achieve RFP milestones or to meet quantitative milestone 
requirements (``RFP contingency measures'').
1. Contingency Measure Element of Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as submitted February 28, 2017, 
identifies the mandatory curtailment provision in SIP-approved City 
Ordinance No. 344 as an attainment contingency measure and identifies a 
District ``policy'' to incentivize the replacement of older wood stoves 
with only pellet stoves, propane stoves, or wood stoves meeting the 
``Step 2'' emission limits in the EPA's NSPS for wood heating devices 
as an RFP contingency measure.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mandatory curtailment provision in section 15.10.060 of City 
Ordinance No. 344 does not qualify for use as a contingency measure 
under CAA section 172(c)(9) because City Ordinance No. 344 is a SIP-
approved component of the attainment control strategy in the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\45\ Additionally, because this provision takes 
effect on January 1, 2021, before the December 31, 2021 attainment date 
and October 15, 2022 RFP milestone date applicable to the area, this 
measure is an already implemented measure that cannot be used to comply 
with the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement under the 
Ninth Circuit's decision in Bahr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 83 FR 64774, 64780-64784 (December 18, 2018) (describing 
City Ordinance No. 344 and other control measures in the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as RACM and additional reasonable measures for 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's described ``policy'' for incentivizing the 
replacement of older wood burning devices with cleaner residential 
heating devices also does not qualify for use as a contingency measure 
under CAA section 172(c)(9) because it is not a fully adopted rule or 
control measure that is ready to be implemented quickly upon being 
triggered and does not specify the timeframe within which its 
requirements would take effect following any of the EPA determinations 
specified in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
    Thus, the contingency measure element of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as submitted February 28, 2017, fails to satisfy 
the requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 
40 CFR 51.1014.
2. Revised Contingency Measure for Attainment Purposes
    City Ordinance No. 359 contains a new contingency measure that 
revises and supplements the contingency measure element of the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The new provision, in section 15.10.070 of City 
Ordinance No. 359, would increase the stringency of the mandatory 
curtailment provision in section 15.10.060 of SIP-approved City 
Ordinance No. 344 by lowering the threshold at which the District will 
declare a mandatory curtailment from 30 [mu]g/m\3\ to 20 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
by extending the period during which the District may declare such 
mandatory curtailments from four months (January to December) to eight 
months (September to April).\46\ This revised contingency measure would 
satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 
because it: (i) Would take effect without significant further action by 
the State or the EPA, if the EPA makes any of the four determinations 
listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a); (ii) would consist of control requirements 
not otherwise included in the attainment control strategy for the 
Portola nonattainment area; and (iii) would specify the timeframe 
within which it becomes effective following any of the EPA 
determinations listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Compare City Ordinance No. 359, section 15.10.070 with City 
Ordinance No. 344, section 15.10.060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered the adequacy of the contingency measure from the 
standpoint of the magnitude of emission reductions the measure would 
provide if triggered. Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing 
regulations for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS establish a specific amount 
of emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must 
achieve, but we generally expect that contingency measures should 
provide for emission reductions approximately equivalent to one year's 
worth of RFP. For the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Portola 
nonattainment area, one year's worth of reductions needed for RFP is 
approximately 0.0085 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 73 (Table 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB Staff Report contains the State's quantification of the 
emission reductions anticipated from implementation of section 
15.010.070 of City Ordinance No. 359. The State estimates that lowering 
the curtailment threshold to 20 [micro]g/m\3\ and extending the 
potential curtailment period by four months would reduce 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions by an additional 0.0024 tpd in 2022, the 
year after the attainment year for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 
the Portola nonattainment area.\48\ This estimated reduction in 
emissions from the contingency measure alone does not achieve one 
year's worth of RFP for the Portola nonattainment area. However, in the 
Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision CARB provides the larger SIP 
planning context in which to judge the adequacy of the contingency 
measure by identifying surplus direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions 
estimated to be achieved in 2022 from other measures. The surplus 
emission reductions result from already implemented measures and 
programs, including the ongoing implementation of the Wood Stove 
Program (0.0059 tpd), increased participation in a voluntary 
curtailment program outside of the City of Portola (0.0007 tpd), and 
the District's disbursement of 2019 Targeted Airshed Grant funds to 
weatherize 30 homes in the Portola nonattainment area (0.0002 tpd).\49\ 
Because these surplus emission reductions result from already 
implemented measures, they cannot themselves constitute contingency 
measures. However, these measures provide additional reductions that 
CARB believes may be taken into consideration when evaluating the 
adequacy of the emission reductions from the contingency measure. CARB 
estimates that these other control measures and programs, together with 
the contingency measure in City Ordinance No. 359, would achieve a 
total of 0.0087 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ CARB Staff Report, 9 (Table 6).
    \49\ CARB Staff Report, 10-13. These emission reductions are 
surplus to those relied upon in the control strategy for attaining 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
because they occur after the December 31, 2021 attainment date and/
or will be achieved through implementation of measures adopted after 
the Plan's adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the State's emission reduction estimates for 2022, 
as shown in the CARB Staff Report, and find the calculations 
reasonable. We therefore agree with the State's conclusion that ongoing 
implementation of the measures and programs identified by the State in 
the CARB Staff Report

[[Page 78056]]

provides surplus emission reductions beyond those necessary to 
demonstrate attainment by the December 31, 2021, Moderate area 
attainment date for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the 
Portola nonattainment area. While such surplus emission reductions from 
already implemented measures in the year after the 2021 attainment year 
cannot constitute contingency measures themselves, we consider them 
relevant in evaluating the adequacy of the emission reductions that 
will result from the contingency measure that CARB has proposed to 
adopt in order to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9). In light 
of the ongoing reductions in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
achieved by the District measures and programs identified in the CARB 
Staff Report, the emission reductions from the District contingency 
measure (i.e., section 10.050.070 of City Ordinance No. 359) would be 
sufficient to meet the attainment contingency measure requirement for 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, even though the measure would achieve 
emission reductions less than one year's worth of RFP.
3. Revised Contingency Measure for RFP and Quantitative Milestone 
Purposes
    The applicable quantitative milestone dates for the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Portola nonattainment area are October 
15, 2019 and October 15, 2022.\50\ On May 5, 2019, CARB submitted the 
``Portola 2019 Quantitative Milestone Report'' (``2019 QM Report'') to 
the EPA.\51\ The 2019 QM Report includes a certification from the 
Governor's designee that the 2019 quantitative milestone for the 
Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area has been achieved and a 
demonstration that the adopted control strategy has been fully 
implemented. The 2019 QM Report also contains a demonstration of how 
the emission reductions achieved to date compare to those required or 
scheduled to meet RFP. The State and District conclude in the 2019 QM 
Report that the emission reductions needed to demonstrate RFP have been 
achieved and that the 2019 quantitative milestone has been met in the 
Portola nonattainment area. On November 3, 2020, the EPA determined 
that the 2019 QM Report was adequate.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1); see also 83 FR 64774, 64790 (December 
18, 2018).
    \51\ Letter dated May 5, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive 
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
IX, with enclosure.
    \52\ Letter dated November 3, 2020, from Deborah Jordan, Acting 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, regarding 2019 Quantitative Milestone 
Report for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the State and District have demonstrated that the Portola 
nonattainment area has met its 2019 quantitative milestones, RFP 
contingency measures for the 2019 milestone year are no longer needed. 
The sole purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued 
progress if an area fails to meet its RFP or quantitative milestone 
requirements. Failure to meet RFP or quantitative milestone 
requirements for 2019 would have required California to implement an 
RFP contingency measure.\53\ In this case, however, the 2019 QM Report 
demonstrates that actual emission levels in 2019 were consistent with 
the approved 2019 RFP milestone year targets for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and that the 
adopted control strategy is being implemented as scheduled. 
Accordingly, RFP contingency measures for 2019 no longer have meaning 
or purpose, and the EPA proposes to find that the requirement for them 
is now moot as applied to the Portola nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Under section 189(c)(3) of the CAA, if a state fails to 
submit a required quantitative milestone report or the EPA 
determines that the area has not met an applicable milestone, the 
EPA must require the state, within nine months after such failure or 
determination, to submit a plan revision that assures that the state 
will achieve the next milestone (or attain the NAAQS, if there is no 
next milestone) by the applicable date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 2022 RFP milestone year, the contingency 
measure in section 10.050.070 of City Ordinance No. 359 would take 
effect if the EPA determines that the area has failed to meet a 
requirement concerning RFP or quantitative milestones \54\ but would 
not, by itself, be sufficient to achieve emission reductions equivalent 
to one year's worth of RFP. The CARB Staff Report, however, states that 
continued implementation of the existing wood-stove changeout program 
together with several new measures and programs will result in surplus 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions in the 2022 RFP milestone year and 
in 2023.\55\ These measures and programs include a chimney sweep 
voucher program, additional weatherization of homes, wood sheds for 
households in the nonattainment area to keep firewood dry, and the 
provision of a reliable and affordable supply of seasoned wood.\56\ The 
CARB Staff Report states that funds awarded to the District from the 
EPA's 2018 and 2019/2020 Targeted Airshed Grants will ensure continuous 
education, outreach, and implementation and enforcement of these and 
additional programs designed to further reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emissions in the Portola nonattainment area after 2022.\57\ In light of 
these ongoing and additional reductions in emissions of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the emission reductions from the District's 
contingency measure (i.e., section 10.050.070 of City Ordinance No. 
359) would be sufficient to meet the 2022 RFP contingency measure 
requirement for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, even though the 
measure would achieve emission reductions less than one year's worth of 
RFP for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ City Ordinance No. 359, section 10.050.070.
    \55\ CARB Staff Report, 14-15.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that if the EPA determines that the Portola nonattainment 
area has failed to attain the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the 
December 31, 2021 attainment date and thereby triggers the contingency 
measure provision in section 10.050.070 of City Ordinance No. 359, the 
State would be required to a submit a replacement contingency measure 
to address the 2022 milestone date. However, timely submittal of a 
quantitative milestone report for the 2022 milestone date would, if 
found adequate by the EPA, moot the contingency measure requirement for 
this milestone date.
4. Additional Revisions in City Ordinance No. 359
    The new prohibition on the open burning of yard waste, related 
definitions, and limited exemptions in City Ordinance No. 359 are clear 
and the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions in 
the ordinance ensure that affected sources and regulators can 
consistently evaluate and determine compliance with these additional 
provisions. These revisions are therefore consistent with CAA 
requirements regarding enforceability.
    Additionally, these new provisions in City Ordinance No. 359 comply 
with CAA section 110(l) because they strengthen the SIP by adding new 
requirements for the control of PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from open 
burning activities in the Portola nonattainment area and would not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP 
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 does not 
apply to this action because City Ordinance No. 359 does not modify a 
control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990.\58\ We are not 
evaluating the

[[Page 78057]]

stringency of these provisions for compliance with specific CAA control 
standards at this time and will do so as part of our action on any 
subsequently submitted attainment plan for the Portola nonattainment 
area, as appropriate.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ City Ordinance No. 359 modifies a control requirement that 
the EPA approved into the SIP on March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9213) 
(approving City Ordinance No. 344 into SIP). Upon the EPA's final 
approval of City Ordinance No. 359 into the SIP, this ordinance 
(excluding paragraph 15.10.060(B) and sections 15.10.100 and 
15.10.110) will entirely replace City Ordinance No. 344. NSAQMD, 
Resolution 2020-09 (October 26, 2020), 4 (para. 9).
    \59\ The EPA previously determined that the Portola 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan contains all RACM necessary for expeditious 
attainment of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 
2021 Moderate area attainment date. 84 FR 11208 (March 25, 2019). If 
the EPA determines that the Portola nonattainment area has failed to 
attain the NAAQS by this date, the area will be reclassified as a 
Serious area, and the State will be required to submit a revised 
attainment plan for the area that provides for the implementation of 
best available control measures (BACM) within four years after such 
reclassification. CAA sections 188(b)(2) and 189(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has excluded from the SIP submission paragraph 
15.10.060(B) and sections 15.10.100 and 15.10.110 of City Ordinance No. 
359 regarding penalties and violations.\60\ These paragraphs are not 
necessary for SIP approval and could lead to confusion with respect to 
similar Federal requirements set forth in CAA section 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NSAQMD, Resolution 2020-09 (October 26, 2020), 3 
(paragraphs. 6, 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to approve the contingency measure element of 
the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as revised and supplemented by the 
Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision, as meeting the contingency 
measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for 
the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Portola nonattainment 
area. Our proposed approval is contingent upon the State's submission 
of the final, adopted PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision in time for the 
EPA to finalize this action by March 1, 2021, our court-ordered 
deadline for taking final action on the contingency measure element of 
the Plan. The EPA also proposes to find that the requirement for RFP 
contingency measures for the 2019 milestone date is moot as applied to 
the Portola nonattainment area, because the State's and District's 2019 
QM Report adequately demonstrates that the emission reductions needed 
to demonstrate RFP have been achieved and that the 2019 quantitative 
milestone has been met in the Portola nonattainment area.
    The EPA is proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove the 
contingency measure element of the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as 
submitted February 28, 2017 (section VI.B of the Plan), if the State 
fails to adopt and submit the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Revision in time 
for the EPA to take final action by March 1, 2021, because the 
contingency measure element of the Plan as submitted February 28, 2017, 
fails to satisfy the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.
    If we finalize the proposed disapproval, the offset sanction in CAA 
section 179(b)(2) would apply in the Portola PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of the final 
disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) 
would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction is 
imposed. These sanctions would apply unless we take final action to 
approve SIP revisions that meet the relevant CAA requirements prior to 
the time the sanctions would take effect. In addition to the sanctions, 
CAA section 110(c) provides that the EPA must promulgate a Federal 
implementation plan addressing the deficiency that is the basis for a 
disapproval, two years after the effective date of the disapproval, 
unless we have approved a revised SIP submission correcting the 
deficiency before that date.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to approve the new provisions in City 
Ordinance No. 359 concerning open burning of yard wastes and other 
debris, including related definitions and exemptions. These provisions 
strengthen the SIP and are consistent with CAA requirements regarding 
enforceability and SIP provisions. At the State's and District's 
request, we are not acting on paragraph 15.10.060(B), section 
15.10.100, or section 15.10.110 of City Ordinance No. 359.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the 
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments 
are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of 
this preamble.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the CARB measure described in Section II of this preamble 
(City Ordinance No. 359). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, 
these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

VIII. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve, or 
conditionally approve, state plans as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 78058]]

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, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-26648 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>