5086 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Note: The text of Form 5 does not, and this 

amendment will not, appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, DC 20549 

FORM 5 

* * * * * 

General Instructions 

* * * * * 

10. Optional Rule 10b5–1(c) 

Transaction Indication 

If a transaction was made pursuant to 

a contract, instruction or written plan 

for the purchase or sale of equity 

securities of the issuer that satisfies the 

conditions of Rule 10b5–1(c) under the 

Exchange Act [§ 240.10b5–1(c) of this 

chapter], a reporting person may elect to 

check the Rule 10b5–1 box appearing on 

this Form. Additional information, such 

as the date of a Rule 10b5–1 plan, may 

be provided at the filer’s option in the 

‘‘Explanation of Responses’’ portion of 

the Form. 

* * * * * 

b Check this box to indicate that a 

transaction was made pursuant to Rule 

10b5–1(c). See Instruction 10. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Dated: December 22, 2020. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28790 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0523; FRL–10017– 

10–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; Feather 

River Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Feather River Air Quality 

Management District (FRAQMD or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from surface 

preparation and clean-up operations. 

We are proposing to approve a local rule 

to regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ‘‘Act’’). 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. is EPA– 

R09–OAR–2020–0523 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by 

email at vineyard.christine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

FRAQMD ........... 3.14 Surface Preparation and Clean-up .............................................................. 08/01/16 01/24/17 

On April 17, 2017, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

FRAQMD Rule 3.14 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 3.14 into the SIP on April 23, 2015 

(80 FR 22646). The FRAQMD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

August 1, 2016, and CARB submitted 

them to us on January 24, 2017. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

Emissions of VOCs contribute to the 

production of ground-level ozone, (or 

‘‘smog’’) and particulate matter, which 

harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires states to submit regulations that 

control VOC emissions. Rule 3.14 was 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5087 

revised to be consistent with the CARB 

Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for 

Automotive Coatings and Components 

by simplifying coating categories, 

lowering VOC limits and modifying 

recordkeeping and labeling 

requirements. The EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

information about this rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

Generally, SIP rules must require 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for each category of sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document as well as 

each major source of VOCs in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or above (see CAA section 

182(b)(2)). 

CAA Guidance and policy documents 

that we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Solvent Metal 

Cleaning,’’ EPA–450/2–77–022, 

November 1977 (http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html) 

5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents,’’ EPA– 

453/R–06–001, September 2006 (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozonepollution/ 

SIPToolkit/ctgs.html) 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

The FRAQMD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as Severe 

nonattainment. The District is a bicounty agency that administers local, 

state, and federal air quality 

management programs for Yuba and 

Sutter Counties. Portions of the District 

have been designated as Moderate or 

above nonattainment for failure to meet 

the federal 8-hour ground-level ozone 

standard. The submitted SIP rule does 

not fully meet RACT because the rule 

contains an exemption for any solvent 

degreasing operations subject to the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

T—National Emission Standards for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning. 

However, EPA approved a negative 

declaration for this category in the 

FRAQMD’s 2008 ozone standard RACT 

SIP. (80 FR 38959, July 8, 2015). 

Therefore, Rule 3.14 does not need to 

meet RACT requirements. Despite this, 

we believe it is helpful, for 

informational purposes, to compare 

Rule 3.14 to other RACT rules in effect 

in other California districts. This 

comparison is set forth in our TSD and 

we believe Rule 3.14 contains RACTlevel control requirements, except for 

the NESHAP exemption, that will 

strengthen the SIP. In addition, the 

District has submitted a negative 

declaration for this source category in 

the FRAQMD’s 2015 ozone standard 

RACT SIP. We will evaluate the 

FRAQMD’s 2015 ozone standard RACT 

SIP in a future rulemaking. 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to 

Further Improve the Rule 

The TSD also includes 

recommendations for the next time the 

local agency modifies the rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule because it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until February 18, 

2021. If we take final action to approve 

the submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

III. 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 FRAQMD Rule described in Table 1 

of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through https://

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). 

IV. 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 state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5088 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1The Kansas rule allows an additional one psi for 

gasoline containing 9 to 10% ethanol. 

2The CAA allows an additional one psi for 

gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol. 

3The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was originally 

promulgated as a photochemical oxidant standard. 

See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). In 1979, the EPA 

substituted the word ‘‘ozone’’ for ‘‘photochemical 

oxidant’’. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). In 

doing so, the EPA stated that ‘‘(t)he intent of the 

standard (total-oxidant reduction), the control 

strategies, and the index of progress toward 

attainment (measured ozone levels) remain 

unchanged.’’ Id. at 8203. 

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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 23, 2020. 

John Busterud, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00358 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0711; FRL–10019– 

24–Region 7] 

Air Plan Approval; Kansas; Removal of 

Kansas City, Kansas Reid Vapor 

Pressure Fuel Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

revision to the Kansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Kansas Department of Health and 

the Environment (KDHE) on December 

9, 2020. The proposed revision removes 

the Kansas City, Kansas seven pounds 

per square inch Reid Vapor Pressure 

(RVP) Fuel requirement which required 

gasoline sold in the Kansas City, Kansas 

area to have a seven pounds per square 

inch Reid Vapor Pressure from June 1 to 

September 15. The rest of the state is 

subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA) nine 

pounds per square inch Reid Vapor 

Pressure from June 1 to September 15. 

If approved the Kansas City, Kansas area 

would be subject to the Clean Air Act 

Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel requirement. 

In addition, EPA anticipates issuing a 

separate proposal for the Missouri side 

of the Kansas City metro area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2020–0711 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed 

Wolkins, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7588; 

email address: wolkins.jed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

IV. Background 

V. What is the EPA’s analysis of Kansas’ SIP 

request? 

VI. What action is the EPA taking? 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2020– 

0711, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

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. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Kansas SIP, submitted by 

the KDHE on December 9, 2020. The 

proposed revision removes the Kansas 

City, Kansas; Johnson and Wyandotte 

Counties; 7.0 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

Fuel requirement. The approved SIP, 

K.A.R. 28–19–719, requires gasoline 

sold in the two counties to have a RVP 

of seven pounds per square inch (psi) or 

less from June 1 through September 15.1

If the SIP revision is approved, the 

Kansas City, Kansas area would be 

subject to the CAA RVP requirement of 

nine psi or less from June 1 through 

September 15.2 Kansas has asked EPA to 

remove K.A.R. 28–19–719 Fuel 

Volatility from the SIP. 

III. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The State submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. The State provided 

public notice on this SIP revision from 

August 27, 2020 to November 4, 2020 

and received eight comments. Kansas 

adequately responded to all eight 

comments, as noted in the State 

submission included in the docket for 

this action, but did not make any 

changes to the removal based on the 

comments received. 

In addition, as explained below, the 

revision meets the substantive SIP 

requirements of the CAA, including 

section 110 and implementing 

regulations. 

IV. Background 

The EPA established a 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 1971.3 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 

1971). On March 3, 1978, the EPA 

designated Johnson and Wyandotte 

counties (hereinafter referred to in this 

document as the ‘‘Kanas City area’’) in 

nonattainment of the 1971 1-hour ozone 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS