Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1131-1133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office []
[FR Doc No: 2019-28442]
[[Page 1131]]
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0693; FRL-10003-95-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``the District'') portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) from wood burning
devices. 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
DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0693 at For comments submitted at, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 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
St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4118 or by email at
[email protected].
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 dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.
 Table 1--Submitted Rule
 Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
SJVUAPCD......................... 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and 06/20/2019 07/22/2019
 Wood Burning Heaters.
 On November 21, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 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 4901 into the SIP on October
6, 2016 (81 FR 69393). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on June 20, 2019, and CARB submitted them to us on
July 22, 2019.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
 Emissions of VOCs and NOX contribute to the production
of ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the
environment. Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are
harmful to human health and the environment, including premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit regulations that control VOC, NOX, and PM emissions.
 Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions of these pollutants
generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters,
and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for
the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood burning devices
and on the advertising of wood for sale within the San Joaquin Valley
Air Basin (San Joaquin Valley).
 The SIP-approved rule includes a two-tiered, episodic wood burning
curtailment requirement. During a level one episodic wood burning
curtailment, which is triggered when the PM2.5 concentration
is forecasted to be between 20-65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\), operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregistered wood
burning heaters is prohibited, but properly operated wood burning
heaters that meet certification requirements and have a current
registration with the District may be used. Specific certification and
registration requirements are outlined in the rule. During a level two
episodic wood burning curtailment, which is triggered when the
PM2.5 concentration is forecasted to be above 65 [micro]g/
m\3\ or the PM10 concentration is forecasted to be above 135
[micro]g/m\3\, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited. The
SIP-approved rule was modified to lower the wood burning curtailment
thresholds in the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern.\1\
The level one PM2.5 threshold for these counties was lowered
from 20 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12 [mu]g/m\3\, and the level two PM2.5
threshold was
[[Page 1132]]
lowered from 65 [mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The curtailment thresholds
for other counties in the San Joaquin Valley were not modified.
 \1\ ``The hot spots are either new areas of gas utility or areas
deemed to have persistently poor air quality.'' SJVUAPCD 2018 Plan
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (``2018
PM2.5 Plan''), Appendix J, 60.
 A contingency measure was added requiring that on and after sixty
days following the effective date of EPA final rulemaking that the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin has failed to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date, the PM2.5 curtailment levels for
any county that has failed to attain the applicable standard will be
lowered to the curtailment levels in place for hot spot counties.
 Furthermore, the revised rule adds additional restrictions on the
installation of wood burning devices, new requirements for fireplace
and chimney remodel projects, additional requirements for residential
real estate sales, non-seasoned wood to the list of prohibited fuel
types, a new visible emissions limit for fireplaces and non-registered
devices, and other editorial revisions to improve rule clarity.
 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).
 The San Joaquin Valley is currently designated and classified as an
Extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and an Extreme 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area under the 1997, 2008, and 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\2\ CAA section 172(c)(1) requires ozone nonattainment areas to
implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. While our
stringency discussion below focuses on PM emissions, we are not aware
of reasonably available controls for these sources for ozone precursors
that are not also reasonably available controls for PM. In addition,
because residential wood burning takes place in the winter months when
ozone concentrations are lower and the probability of exceeding the
ozone NAAQS is low, we do not believe it is necessary to assess RACM/
RACT for ozone and its precursors independently from our assessment for
 \2\ 40 CFR 81.305.
 San Joaquin Valley is designated and classified as a Serious
nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards (40 CFR
81.305). CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas to implement best available control measures
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT),\3\ within 4
years after reclassification of the area to Serious. Therefore,
SJVUAPCD must implement BACM, including BACT, for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.\4\ Under the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, BACM is defined as:
 \3\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) refers only to BACM, but EPA
interprets this term to include BACT (see, e.g., 80 FR 15340, 15404
(March 23, 2015)).
 \4\ PM2.5 precursors are NOX,VOC, sulfur
dioxide and ammonia. We are not aware of any additional feasible
controls for these pollutants that are not also feasible controls
for direct PM2.5 emissions, so we are not separately
evaluating these pollutants in this action.
any technologically and economically feasible control measure that
can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the date
of reclassification of a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
area to Serious and that generally can achieve greater permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions and/or emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors from
sources in the area than can be achieved through the implementation
of RACM on the same source(s).\5\
 \5\ 40 CFR 51.1000. See also 40 CFR 51.1010(a).
 In addition, SJVUAPCD must implement ``additional feasible
measures'' for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, which
is defined as:
any control measure that otherwise meets the definition of ``best
available control measure'' (BACM) but can only be implemented in
whole or in part beginning 4 years after the date of
reclassification of an area as Serious and no later than the
statutory attainment date for the area.\6\
 \6\ Id.
 Furthermore, SJVUAPCD has requested an extension of the attainment
deadline for the 2006 PM2.5 standards from 2019 to 2024
pursuant to CAA section 188(e).\7\ One of the criteria that must be met
for the EPA to grant such an extension is a demonstration that ``the
plan for that area includes the most stringent measures that are
included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in
practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.''
\8\ Accordingly, in order to receive an extension of the attainment
deadline for the 2006 PM2.5 standards, SJVUAPCD must
implement most stringent measures (MSM) for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.
 \7\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, 6-2.
 \8\ CAA section 188(e). See also 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
 San Joaquin Valley is designated and classified as a Moderate
nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standards.
Therefore, under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C), SJVUAPCD must
implement RACM, including RACT, for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors. Since BACM/BACT represents a more
stringent and potentially more costly level of control than RACM/
RACT,\9\ we are not evaluating Rule 4901 for RACM/RACT separately from
our evaluation from BACM/BACT. The EPA will address the overall RACM/
RACT requirement for the SJVUAPCD 2012 PM2.5 Moderate
Nonattainment Area at a later date when we act on an attainment plan
addressing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
 \9\ 81 FR 58010, 58081 (August 24, 2016).
 San Joaquin Valley is currently designated attainment for
PM10.\10\ Accordingly, SJVUAPCD is not required to implement
BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT for PM10 and PM10
precursors. Therefore, we are not currently evaluating Rule 4901 for
compliance with BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT requirements for
 \10\ 40 CFR 81.305.
 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. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
 2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
 3. ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke'', EPA-456/B-
13-001, March 2013.
 We note that in this action we are not evaluating the contingency
measure in section 5.7.4 of revised Rule 4901 for compliance with all
requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations that
apply to such measures. We are proposing to approve this measure into
the SIP because it strengthens the rule by providing a possibility of
additional curtailment days, and thus potentially additional emissions
reductions. We will evaluate whether this provision, in conjunction
with other submitted provisions, meets the statutory and regulatory
[[Page 1133]]
requirements for contingency measures in future actions.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
 This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, SIP revisions, and RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and
MSM for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. The rule
requirements and applicability are clear, and the monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that
affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance
with Rule 4901 consistently. We propose to determine that our approval
of the submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l), because the
proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process for
ensuring that requirements for reasonable further progress and
attainment are met and the submitted SIP revision is at least as
stringent as the rule previously approved into the SIP. CAA section 193
does not apply to this action because the submitted SIP revision does
not weaken any SIP control requirement in effect before November 15,
 In 2015, we conducted a detailed evaluation of the stringency of
the 2014 version of Rule 4901, as compared with other wood burning
rules and relevant guidance. Based on this evaluation, we proposed to
determine that it implemented BACM/BACT for PM2.5 for wood
burning devices and to fully approve it. After reviewing and responding
to comments on that proposal, we finalized a determination that the
2014 version of Rule 4901 implemented RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT for
PM2.5 for this source category and approved it into the
SIP.\11\ In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District conducted
another review of the 2014 version of Rule 4901 compared with wood
burning rules in several other jurisdictions and concluded that Rule
4901 was more stringent than each of the other rules ``when evaluated
 \11\ 81 FR 69393 (October 6, 2016).
 The 2019 amendments to Rule 4901 further strengthen the rule in
several respects, as described in Section I.C above. Accordingly, we
propose to find that the 2019 version of Rule 4901 implements RACM/RACT
and BACM/BACT for PM2.5 for this source category. We also
propose to find that it implements MSM for PM2.5 for this
source category because, as a whole, it is as or more stringent than
analogous local, state and federal rules and guidance. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
C. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
 The TSD includes recommendations for the next time SJVUAPCD
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 10, 2020. 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 the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through 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 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 CAA. 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,
 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 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,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
 Dated: December 16, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-28442 Filed 1-8-20; 8:45 am]