Appendix H (``RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency'') of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan contains the State's RFP demonstration
and quantitative milestones for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS,\144\ and the Valley State SIP Strategy contains the control
measure commitments that CARB has identified as mobile source
quantitative milestones for the 2020 milestone date.\145\ Given the
State's conclusions that ammonia, SOX, and VOC emissions do
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as
discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, the RFP demonstration
provided by the State addresses emissions of direct PM2.5
and NOX.\146\ Similarly, the State developed quantitative
milestones based upon implementation of control strategy measures in
the adopted SIP and in the SJV PM2.5 Plan that achieve
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX.\147\ For the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
RFP demonstration in the Plan shows generally linear progress toward
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ As discussed in footnote 32, all references to Appendix H
in this proposed rule are to the revised version submitted on
February 11, 2020, which replaces the version submitted with the
2018 PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 2019.
    \145\ Valley State SIP Strategy, Table 7 (identifying State
measures scheduled for action between 2017 and 2020, inter alia) and
CARB Resolution 18-49, ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016
State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' (October 25,
2018), 5 (adopting State commitment to begin public processes and
propose for Board consideration the list of proposed SIP measures
outlined in the Valley State SIP Strategy and included in Attachment
A, according to the schedule set forth therein).
    \146\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, H-1.
    \147\ Id. at H-18 and H-19 (District milestones), and H-21 and
H-22 (State milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We describe the RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan in greater detail below.
Reasonable Further Progress
    The State addresses the RFP and quantitative milestone requirements
in Appendix H to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan submitted in February
2020. The Plan estimates that emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX will generally decline from the 2013 base year to the
projected 2020 attainment year, and beyond to the 2023 post-attainment
quantitative milestone year. The Plan's emissions inventory shows that
direct PM2.5 and NOX are emitted by a large
number and range of sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-2 in
Appendix H contains an anticipated implementation schedule for District
regulatory control measures and Table 4-8 in Chapter 4 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule
for CARB control measures in the San Joaquin Valley. Table H-5 in
Appendix H contains projected emissions for each quantitative milestone
year. These emission levels reflect baseline emission projections
through the 2023 post-attainment milestone year.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Id. at tables H-3 to H-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJV PM2.5 Plan identifies emission reductions needed
for attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2020,\149\
and identifies San Joaquin Valley's progress toward attainment in each
milestone year.\150\ The State and District set RFP targets for each of
the quantitative milestone years as shown in Table H-8 of Appendix H of
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Id. at Table H-6.
    \150\ Id. at Table H-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, reductions in both direct PM2.5
and NOX emissions from 2013 base year levels result in
emission levels consistent with attainment in the 2020 attainment year.
Based on these analyses, the State and District conclude that the
adopted control strategy is adequate to meet the RFP requirement for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Quantitative Milestones
    Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies the
milestone dates of December 31, 2017, December 31, 2020, and December
31, 2023, for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\151\ Appendix H also
identifies target emission levels to meet the RFP requirement for
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each of these
milestone years,\152\ and State and District control measures that will
achieve emission reductions in the years leading up to each of the
milestones, in accordance with the control strategy in the Plan.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Id. at Table H-12.
    \152\ Id. at Table H-8.
    \153\ Id. at H-18 and H-19 (District milestones), and H-21 and
H-22 (State milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan includes quantitative milestones for mobile, stationary,
and area sources. For mobile sources, CARB has developed quantitative
milestones that provide for an evaluation of RFP based on the
implementation of specific control measures by the relevant three-year
milestones. For each quantitative milestone year, the Plan provides for
evaluating RFP by tracking State and District implementation of
regulatory measures and SIP commitments during the three-year period
leading to each milestone date, consistent with the control strategy in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan.\154\ The identified regulatory measures
include State measures for light-duty vehicles and non-road vehicles
and several District measures for stationary and area sources.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Id. We note that the District's identified quantitative
milestones for 2023 appear to contain a typographical error, as they
include a District report on ``[t]he status of SIP measures adopted
between 2017 and 2020 as per the schedule included in the adopted
Plan.'' Id. at H-18 and H-19. We understand that the District
intended to refer here to the status of SIP measures adopted between
2020 and 2023, consistent with the schedule in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan.
    \155\ Id. at H-18 and H-19 (District milestones), and H-21 and
H-22 (State milestones).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB submitted its 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report for the San
Joaquin Valley to the EPA on December 20, 2018.\156\ The report
includes a certification that CARB and the District met the 2017
quantitative milestones identified in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and discusses the State's and
District's progress on implementing the three CARB measures and six
District measures identified in Appendix H as quantitative milestones
for the 2017 milestone year. On February 15, 2021, the EPA determined
that the 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report was adequate.\157\ In our
evaluation of the 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report, we found that the
control measures in the Plan are in effect, consistent with the RFP
demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, but we noted that the determination of adequacy
did not constitute approval of any component of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Letter dated December 20, 2018, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, with attachment ``2017 Quantitative Milestone Report
for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS.''
    \157\ Letter dated February 15, 2021, from Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, with enclosure titled ``EPA Evaluation of
2017 Quantitative Milestone Report.''
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    As discussed in section IV.D, we are proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan because the area did not attain by the
State's projected attainment date, which was December 31, 2020. As a
result, the RFP

demonstration in the Plan does not achieve the statutory purpose of RFP
to ``ensure attainment'' under CAA section 171(l) and the quantitative
milestones do not ``demonstrate [RFP] toward attainment by the
applicable date'' under CAA section 189(c). We are, therefore,
proposing to disapprove the RFP and quantitative milestone elements of
the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS for failure to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2),
171(1), and 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1012 and 51.1013.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), each state required to make a
nonattainment plan SIP submission must include, in such plan,
contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP
(``RFP contingency measures'') or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date (``attainment contingency measures''). Under
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, states must include
contingency measures that will 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 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\159\ Contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented
quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the
relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
    \160\ 81 FR 58010, 58066 and General Preamble Addendum, 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP
requirement or to correct ongoing nonattainment. Neither the CAA nor
the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of
emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must
achieve, but the EPA recommends that contingency measures should
provide for emission reductions equivalent to approximately one year of
reductions needed for RFP in the nonattainment area at issue,
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 measures to occur within 60 days after the
EPA notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 81 FR 58010, 58066. See also General Preamble, 13512,
13543-13544, and General Preamble Addendum, 42014-42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency
measures adopted as part of a PM2.5 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). In a 2016 decision
called Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr''),\162\ the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) to allow
approval of already-implemented control measures as contingency
measures. In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that contingency
measures must be measures that are triggered and implemented only after
the EPA determines that an area failed to meet RFP requirements or to
attain by the applicable attainment date. Thus, within the geographic
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, already implemented measures cannot
serve as contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9). To comply
with section 172(c)(9), a state must develop, adopt, and submit a
contingency measure to be triggered upon a failure to meet an RFP
milestone, failure to meet a quantitative milestone requirement, or
failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The SJV PM2.5 Plan addresses the contingency measure
requirement for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in section 5.6
and Appendix H (specifically, section H.3 (``Contingency Measures''))
of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The Plan relies on revisions to the
District's wood-burning rule (Rule 4901) and refers to a SIP revision
submitted by CARB on October 23, 2017, titled ``State Implementation
Plan Attainment Contingency Measures for the San Joaquin Valley 15
[mu]g/m \3\ Annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' (``2017 Contingency Measure
SIP'').\163\ On March 19, 2021, CARB withdrew the 2017 Contingency
Measure SIP submission.\164\ Therefore, we are not evaluating the 2017
Contingency Measure SIP as part of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Letter dated October 23, 2017, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    \164\ Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, transmitting CARB Executive Order S-21-
004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the District contingency measure, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan states that the District will amend Rule 4901 to
include a requirement that would be triggered upon a determination by
the EPA that the San Joaquin Valley failed to meet a regulatory
requirement necessitating implementation of a contingency measure.\165\
As discussed in section II.C, the District adopted amendments to Rule
4901 on June 20, 2019, including a contingency measure in section 5.7.3
of the amended rule. In the EPA's July 22, 2020 final action to approve
Rule 4901, as amended June 20, 2019, we did not evaluate section 5.7.3
of the amended rule for compliance with CAA requirements for
contingency measures.\166\ We are now evaluating section 5.7.3 of Rule
4901 for compliance with the requirements for contingency measures for
purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, H-25.
    \166\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of Rule 4901);
85 FR 1131, 1132-1133 (January 9, 2020) (proposed approval of Rule
4901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions 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 for advertising
the sale of seasoned wood consistent with a moisture content limit
within the San Joaquin Valley. The rule includes a two-tiered, episodic
wood burning curtailment requirement that applies during four winter
months, November through February. During a level one episodic wood
burning curtailment, section 5.7.1 prohibits any person from operating
a wood burning fireplace or unregistered wood burning heater, but
permits the use of a properly operated wood burning heater that meets
certification requirements and has a current registration with the
District. Sections 5.9 through 5.11 impose specific registration
requirements on any person operating a wood burning fireplace or wood
burning heater and section 5.12 imposes specific certification
requirements on wood burning heater professionals. During a level two
episodic wood burning curtailment, operation of any wood burning device
is prohibited by section 5.7.2.
    Prior to the 2019-2020 wood burning season, the District imposed a
level one

curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was forecasted to
be between 20 [mu]g/m \3\ and 65 [mu]g/m \3\ and imposed a level two
curtailment when the PM2.5 concentration was forecasted to
be above 65 [mu]g/m \3\ or the PM10 concentration was
forecasted to be above 135 [mu]g/m \3\. In 2019 the District adopted
revisions to Rule 4901 to lower the wood burning curtailment thresholds
in the ``hot spot'' counties of Madera, Fresno, and Kern. The District
lowered the level one PM2.5 threshold for these three
counties from 20 [mu]g/m \3\ to 12 [mu]g/m \3\, and the level two
PM2.5 threshold from 65 [mu]g/m \3\ to 35 [mu]g/m \3\. The
District did not modify the curtailment thresholds for other counties
in the San Joaquin Valley--those levels remain at 20 [mu]g/m \3\ for
level one and 65 [mu]g/m \3\ for level two.
    The District's 2019 revision to Rule 4901 also included the
addition of a contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of the rule,
requiring that 60 days following the effective date of an EPA
determination that the San Joaquin Valley has failed to attain the
1997, 2006, or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, the PM2.5 curtailment levels of any county that has
failed to attain the applicable standard will be lowered to the
curtailment levels in place for hot spot counties. The District
estimates that the potential emissions reduction of direct
PM2.5 would be in the range of 0.014 tpd (if the contingency
measure is triggered in Kings County but not the other non-hot spot
counties) to 0.387 tpd (if the contingency measure is triggered in all
five of the non-hot spot counties), but there would be no emissions
reduction if, at the time of the determination of failure to attain the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date, violations
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are observed only at monitors
in the hot spot counties.\167\ The corresponding potential
NOX emissions reduction would be in the range of 0.002 tpd
to 0.060 tpd, respectively, but once again, there would be no emissions
reduction if the violations are monitored in the hot spot counties
only.\168\ The EPA has already approved Rule 4901, as amended in 2019,
as a revision to the California SIP.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See Table B-13 in Appendix B from the District's Final
Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for revisions to Rule 4901.
    \168\ NOX emissions reductions from the contingency
measure are based on the District's estimates for direct
PM2.5 emissions using the ratio of direct
PM2.5 to NOX in Table 1, page 8, of the
District's Final Staff Report (June 20, 2019) for revisions to Rule
4901.
    \169\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan also provides updated
emissions estimates for the year following the State's projected
attainment year (i.e., 2021) to evaluate whether the emission
reductions from the contingency measures are sufficient. Table H-3 in
Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan shows that the emission
reductions between 2020 and 2021 are estimated to be 0.5 tpd of direct
PM2.5 and 12.3 tpd of NOX (based on the annual
average inventory).
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    We have evaluated the contingency provision in Rule 4901 (i.e.,
section 5.7.3 of the rule) for compliance with the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 and find that the measure meets
some, but not all, of the applicable requirements for contingency
measures. The contingency provision in Rule 4901 is structured to be
undertaken if the area fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
not before, and therefore is consistent with the Bahr decision
disallowing already-implemented measures for contingency measure
purposes under CAA section 172(c)(9). Furthermore, the contingency
provision in Rule 4901 would achieve emission reductions above and
beyond those that are projected to be achieved if the EPA finds that
monitoring locations in counties outside of Fresno, Kern, or Madera
counties (i.e., the ``hot spot'' counties listed in the rule) are
violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as of the attainment
date. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency provision in
Rule 4901 identifies a specific triggering mechanism. In this case, the
triggering mechanism in the rule is the EPA's final determination that
San Joaquin Valley has failed to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\170\ The rule
also specifies a timeframe within which its requirements become
effective after a failure-to-attain determination (i.e., 60 days from
the effective date of the EPA's final determination), and would take
effect with minimal further action by the State or the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 states that ``the District
shall notify the public of an Episodic Curtailment for the
PM2.5 curtailment levels described in Sections <IP_ADDRESS>
and <IP_ADDRESS> for any county that has failed to attain the applicable
standard.'' (emphasis added) We interpret this to mean that the
District would apply the more stringent curtailment provisions for
any county identified in the EPA's final rule making the
determination that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, we have identified several deficiencies with respect to
the contingency measure element of the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
First, the contingency provisions of Rule 4901 do not address the
potential for State failures to meet RFP, to meet a quantitative
milestone, or to submit a quantitative milestone report. In addition,
the contingency measure provisions of Rule 4901 are not structured to
achieve any additional emissions reductions if the EPA finds that the
monitoring locations in the ``hot spot'' counties (i.e., Fresno, Kern,
or Madera) are the only counties in the San Joaquin Valley that are
violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as of the attainment
date. To qualify as a contingency measure, a measure must be structured
to achieve emissions reductions if triggered; however, the contingency
provisions of Rule 4901 provide for such reductions only under certain
circumstances. Thus, the contingency provisions of Rule 4901 should be
revised to provide for additional emissions reductions in the San
Joaquin Valley (if triggered) regardless of which monitoring site(s) is
determined to be violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as of
the attainment date.
    Furthermore, CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that the plan provide
for the implementation of contingency measures to be undertaken if the
area fails to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Given our proposed disapproval of the
State's attainment demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, as described in section IV.D.3 of this proposed rule, it is not
possible to determine whether emission reductions from contingency
measures in the SJV PM2.5 Plan that are intended to take
effect upon an EPA finding that the area failed to attain the standards
are in fact surplus to the attainment demonstration, as required by
section 172(c)(9).
    For these reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the contingency
measure element of the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. If we finalize this proposal, we will remove
from the California SIP the contingency provision in Rule 4901 (section
5.7.3) because this provision does not satisfy CAA requirements for
contingency measures and is severable from the remainder of Rule 4901.
The disapproval of section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 would have no effect on
our prior approval of the rule for purposes of meeting the BACM and MSM
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley,\171\ which

would remain in effect for all but section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ 85 FR 44206 (final approval of Rule 4901) and 85 FR 44192
(determination that Rule 4901 implements BACM and MSM for
residential wood burning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the state's SIP to
eliminate or reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS
and achieve timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's
goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local
air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA
to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans (RTPs) and
transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally
established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors
and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in
the attainment and RFP demonstrations.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Serious area
PM2.5 attainment plans must include appropriate quantitative
milestones and projected RFP emission levels for direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year.\173\ For an area designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, the attainment plan
must contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three
years after December 31, 2014, and every three years thereafter until
the milestone date that falls within three years after the applicable
attainment date.\174\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, it is important to include a
post-attainment year quantitative milestone to ensure that, if the area
fails to attain by the attainment date, the EPA can continue to monitor
the area's progress toward attainment while the state develops a new
attainment plan.\175\ Although the post-attainment year quantitative
milestone is a required element of a Serious area plan, it is not
necessary to demonstrate transportation conformity for 2023 or to use
the 2023 budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a), 51.1013(a)(1).
    \174\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-
58064 (August 24, 2016).
    \175\ 81 FR 58010, 58063-58064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct
PM2.5, NOX, and all other PM2.5
precursors for which on-road emissions are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP
milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates
attainment. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake
wear, and tire wear. With respect to PM2.5 from re-entrained
road dust and emissions of VOC, SO2, and/or ammonia, the
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A,
apply only if the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
state air agency has made a finding that emissions of these pollutants
within the area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and Department of
Transportation (DOT), or if the applicable implementation plan (or
implementation plan submission) includes any of these pollutants in the
approved (or adequate) budget as part of the RFP, attainment, or
maintenance strategy.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and 93.122(f); see
also Conformity Rule preambles at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1,
2004), 70 FR 24280, 24283-24285 (May 6, 2005) and 70 FR 31354 (June
1, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, transportation conformity requirements apply with
respect to emissions of NOX unless both the EPA Regional
Administrator and the director of the state air agency have made a
finding that transportation-related emissions of NOX within
the nonattainment area are not a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and have so notified the MPO and
DOT, or the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan
submission) does not establish an approved (or adequate) budget for
such emissions as part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not always necessary for states to establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all PM2.5 precursors. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule allows a state to demonstrate
that emissions of certain precursors do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in a nonattainment area,
in which case the state may exclude such precursor(s) from its control
evaluations for the specific NAAQS at issue. If a state successfully
demonstrates that the emissions of one or more of the PM2.5
precursors from all sources do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels in the subject area, then it is not necessary
to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for such precursor(s).
    Alternatively, the transportation conformity regulations contain
criteria for determining whether emissions of one or more
PM2.5 precursors are insignificant for transportation
conformity purposes.\178\ For a pollutant or precursor to be considered
an insignificant contributor based on the transportation conformity
rule's criteria, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate that it
would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant and/or
precursor for a NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations
are based on factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control
measures, trends and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the
percentage of the total attainment plan emissions inventory for the
NAAQS at issue that is comprised of motor vehicle emissions. The EPA's
rationale for providing for insignificance determinations is described
in the July 1, 2004 revision to the Transportation Conformity
Rule.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
    \179\ 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40
CFR 93.124 where a state establishes appropriate mechanisms for such
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment
modeling that establishes the relative contribution of each
PM2.5 precursor pollutant. The applicability of emission
trading between conformity budgets for conformity purposes is described
in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
    The EPA's process for determining the adequacy of a budget consists
of three

basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2) providing
the public the opportunity to comment on the budget during a public
comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or inadequacy.
The EPA can notify the public by either posting an announcement that
the EPA has received SIP budgets on the EPA's adequacy website,\180\ or
through a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking when the EPA
reviews the adequacy of an implementation plan budget simultaneously
with its review and action on the SIP itself.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
    \181\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission
    The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions, calculated using annual
average daily emissions, for 2017, 2020, and 2023 (RFP milestone year,
attainment year, and post-attainment quantitative milestone year,
respectively).\182\ The Plan establishes separate direct
PM2.5 and NOX subarea budgets for each county, or
partial county (for Kern County), in the San Joaquin Valley.\183\ CARB
calculated the budgets using EMFAC2014, CARB's latest version of the
EMFAC model for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles operating in
California that was available at the time of Plan development, and the
latest modeled vehicle miles traveled and speed distributions from the
San Joaquin Valley MPOs from the Final 2017 Federal Transportation
Improvement Program, adopted in September 2016. The budgets reflect
annual average emissions because those emissions are linked with the
District's attainment demonstration for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-1.
    \183\ 40 CFR 93.124(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct PM2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions but do not include paved road dust, unpaved
road dust, and road construction dust emissions.\184\ The State is not
required to include re-entrained road dust in the budgets under section
93.103(b)(3) unless the EPA or the State has made a finding that these
emissions are significant. Neither the State nor the EPA has made such
a finding, but the Plan does include a discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for re-entrained road dust.\185\ The budgets
included in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for purposes of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS are shown in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, D-122 to D-123.
    \185\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, D-121 and D-122.

       Table 6--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                              [Annual average, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2017 (RFP year)       2020 (Attainment year)     2023 (Post-attainment
                                   ----------------------------------------------------           year)
              County                                                                   -------------------------
                                       PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................          0.9         28.5          0.9         25.3          0.8         15.1
Kern..............................          0.8         28.0          0.8         23.3          0.7         13.3
Kings.............................          0.2          5.8          0.2          4.8          0.2          2.8
Madera............................          0.2          5.3          0.2          4.2          0.2          2.5
Merced............................          0.3         10.7          0.3          8.9          0.3          5.3
San Joaquin.......................          0.7         14.9          0.6         11.9          0.6          7.6
Stanislaus........................          0.4         11.9          0.4          9.6          0.4          6.1
Tulare............................          0.4         10.8          0.4          8.5          0.4          5.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-1. Budgets are rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton.

    The State did not include budgets for VOC, SO2, or
ammonia. As discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, the State
submitted a PM2.5 precursor demonstration documenting its
conclusion that control of these precursors would not significantly
contribute to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
State also included a discussion of the significance/insignificance
factors for ammonia, SO2, and VOC to demonstrate a finding
of insignificance under the transportation conformity rule.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that the EPA limit the duration of the approval of the
budgets to the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy
finding for any subsequently submitted budgets.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conformity Trading Mechanism
    The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in direct PM2.5
emissions. The State is proposing to use a 6.5 to 1 NOX to
PM2.5 ratio for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This
ratio was derived by performing a sensitivity analysis based on a 30
percent reduction of NOX or PM2.5 emissions and
calculating the corresponding effect on design values at sites in
Bakersfield and Fresno.
    To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the San Joaquin Valley to meet the NOX budget, the
NOX emissions reductions available to supplement the
PM2.5 budget would be only those remaining after the
NOX budget has been met.\188\ The Plan also provides that
the San Joaquin Valley MPOs shall clearly document the calculations
used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, D-126 and D-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5
for adequacy, prior to taking action on the plan itself, and did so
with respect to the PM2.5 budgets in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. On June 18, 2019, the EPA announced the
availability of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day
public comment period. This announcement was posted on the EPA's
Adequacy website at: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-

transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-
under-epa. The comment period for this notification ended on July 18,
2019. We did not receive any comments during this comment period.
    We have reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and find that, because we are proposing to
disapprove the attainment demonstration and related elements of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan for purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS based on the area's failure to attain by the State's projected
attainment date, the budgets cannot be consistent with the applicable
requirements for RFP and attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to find that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets do not meet applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, including the adequacy criteria specified in the
transportation conformity rule.\189\ As discussed earlier in sections
IV.C, IV.D, and IV.E, we are proposing to disapprove the Plan's five
percent, attainment, and RFP demonstrations. In addition, because we
are proposing to disapprove the five percent and RFP demonstrations,
the budgets are not consistent with the applicable requirements for the
five percent annual reductions and RFP. Therefore, we are proposing to
disapprove the budgets in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. Our proposed
disapproval relates only to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and
does not affect the status of the budgets for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS or the previously-approved budgets for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and related trading mechanism, which remain in
effect for those PM2.5 NAAQS. Because we are disapproving
the attainment and RFP demonstrations, the budgets are not eligible for
a protective finding.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    \190\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If our proposed disapproval of the budgets is finalized, upon the
effective date of our final rule, the area would be subject to a
conformity freeze under 40 CFR 93.120 of the transportation conformity
rule. No new transportation plan, transportation improvement program
(TIP), or project may be found to conform until the State submits
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same CAA requirements, the EPA finds the budgets in the revised plan
adequate or approves the budgets, the MPO makes a conformity
determination for the new budgets, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation makes a conformity determination.\191\ In addition, only
transportation projects outside of the first four years of the current
conforming transportation plan and TIP or that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 93.104(f) during the resulting conformity freeze may be found
to conform until California submits a new attainment plan for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and (1) the EPA finds the submitted
budgets adequate per 40 CFR 93.118 or (2) the EPA approves the new
attainment plan and conformity to the new plan is determined.\192\
Furthermore, if, as a result of our final disapproval action, the EPA
imposes highway sanctions under section 179(b)(1) of the Act two years
from the effective date of our final rule, then the conformity status
of the transportation plan and TIP will lapse on that date and no new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
California submits a new plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and conformity to the plan is determined.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
    \192\ Id.
    \193\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)

    CAA section 189(e) specifically requires that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the standards in the area.\194\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit
program meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and
189(b)(3). As part of our April 7, 2015 final action to reclassify the
San Joaquin Valley area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 standards, we established a May 7, 2016 deadline for
the State to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions addressing the
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the Act for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ General Preamble, 13539 and 13541-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California submitted nonattainment NSR SIP revisions to address the
subpart 4 requirements for the San Joaquin Valley Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area on November 20, 2019. We are not
proposing any action on this submission at this time. We will act on
this submission through a separate rulemaking, as appropriate.

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in
part the portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan that pertain to the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area as follows:
    (1) We are proposing to approve the 2013 base year emissions
inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1008; and
    (2) We are proposing to disapprove the following elements:
    (a) The precursor demonstration as not meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.1006,
    (b) The BACM/BACT demonstration as not meeting the requirements of
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010,
    (c) The five percent demonstration as not meeting the requirements
of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c),
    (d) The attainment demonstration as not meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 189(d) and 179(d) and 40 CFR 51.1011(b),
    (e) The RFP demonstration as not meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1) and 40 CFR 51.1012,
    (f) The quantitative milestone demonstration as not meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013,
    (g) The contingency measures as not meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, and
    (h) The motor vehicle emissions budgets as not meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

A. Effect of Finalizing the Proposed Disapproval Actions

    If we finalize disapprovals of the precursor demonstration, BACM/
BACT demonstration, five percent demonstration, attainment
demonstration, RFP and milestone demonstrations, motor vehicle emission
budgets, or contingency measures, the offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) will be applied in the San Joaquin Valley area 18 months
after the effective date of such final disapproval. For new or modified
major stationary sources in the area, the ratio of emission reductions
to increased emissions shall be at least 2 to 1. The highway funding
sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area six months
after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed
if California

submits and we approve SIP revisions meeting the applicable CAA
requirements prior to the implementation of the sanctions.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See 40 CFR 52.31, which sets forth in detail the sanctions
consequences of a final disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that
the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing
any disapproved elements of the plan two years after the effective date
of disapproval unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, the
required SIP submittal. As a result of the EPA's December 6, 2018
determination that California had failed to submit the required
attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, among other
required SIP submissions for the San Joaquin Valley,\196\ the EPA is
already subject to a statutory deadline to promulgate a FIP for this
purpose no later than two years after the effective date of that
determination.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ 83 FR 62720.
    \197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, if we take final action disapproving the SJV
PM2.5 Plan, a conformity freeze will take effect upon the
effective date of any final disapproval (usually 30 days after
publication of the final action in the Federal Register). A conformity
freeze means that only projects in the first four years of the most
recent RTP and TIP can proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs, or
RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See 40 CFR 93.120(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, if the EPA takes final action on the SJV PM2.5
Plan as proposed, California will be required to develop and submit a
revised plan for the San Joaquin Valley area that addresses the
applicable CAA requirements, including the requirements of CAA section
189(d). In accordance with sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2) of the CAA,
the revised plan must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than five years from the date of the EPA's
determination that the area failed to attain (i.e., by November 23,
2021), except that the EPA may extend the attainment date to a date no
later than 10 years from the date of this determination (i.e., to
November 23, 2026), considering the severity of nonattainment and the
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ 81 FR 84481, 84482 (November 23, 2016) (final EPA action
determining that the San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 Serious area
attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposed rule. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. As explained in section
IV.F.3 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to remove section 5.7.3
of SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 from the California State Implementation Plan,
which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements
of 1 CFR part 51.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not
in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but will
simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain state
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing
requirements under state or local law and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
proposing to disapprove would not 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, and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP disapproval, if
finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
will simply disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

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: July 12, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-15551 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 175 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54638-54640]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22739]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75824; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.21(d), Relating to the Routing of Retail Orders

September 3, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.21(d) to state that
unless otherwise instructed by the Member,\5\ a Retail Order \6\ will
be identified as Retail when routed to an away Trading Center,
including an exchange that operates a retail liquidity program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A
Member will have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that
term is defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act. Membership may be
granted to a sole proprietor, partnership, corporation, limited
liability company or other organization which is a registered broker
or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, and which has been
approved by the Exchange.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \6\ The term ``Retail Order'' ``(i) is an agency order or
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule
5320.03 that originates from a natural person; (ii) is submitted to
EDGX by a Member, provided that no change is made to the terms of
the order; and (iii) does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology.'' See Exchange Rule 11.21(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rule 11.21 defines a Retail Order and sets forth the
attestation requirements \7\ that Members must complete prior to
sending Retail Orders to the Exchange. Rule 11.21(d) also provides that
Members may designate orders as Retail Orders on an order-by-order
basis or a port level basis by designating particular FIX ports as
Retail Order Ports.\8\ Going forward, the Exchange proposes to identify
Retail Orders as Retail when they are routed to an away Trading Center,
including an exchange that operates a retail liquidity program.\9\ As
amended, Rule 11.21(d) would state that, unless otherwise instructed by
the Member, a Retail Order will be identified as Retail when routed to
an away Trading Center. As stated above, Members may designate their
orders as Retail in accordance with Rule 11.21(b) for purposes of order
handling on the EDGX Book. Under the proposed rule change, Members
would be able to instruct the Exchange to remove such Retail
designation from their Retail Orders when such orders are routed to an
away Trading Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Members must submit a signed written attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that they have implemented policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that substantially
all orders designated by the Member as a ``Retail Order'' comply
with the above requirements. See Exchange Rule 11.21(b).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68554 (December 31,
2012), 78 FR 966 (January 7, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2012-48) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness).
    \9\ Currently, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), the New York
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and the Nasdaq Stock Market OMX BX LLC
(``Nasdaq OMX BX'') operate retail liquidity programs. See BYX Rule
11.24, NYSE Rule 107C, NYSE MKT--Equities Rule 107C, NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.44, and Nasdaq OMX BX Rule 4780. These exchange's
also require their members to submit a signed written attestation,
in a form prescribed by that exchange, that they have implemented
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that
substantially all orders designated by the member as a ``Retail
Order'' as defined by that exchange. Id. Each exchange would be
required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission to amend
its definition of ``Retail Order.'' To the extent the Exchange
routes an order identified as Retail to participate in an exchange's
retail liquidity program, it will ensure that it does so in
compliance with that exchange's rules governing its retail liquidity
program, including that the order satisfies that exchange's
definition of ``Retail Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule change on or
about September 10, 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange understands that implementation of the
proposed rule change on September 10, 2015 is contingent upon the
Commission waiving the 30-day operative delay. 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. The proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade because enabling Members to identify their Retail
Orders as Retail when they are routed to an away Trading Center,
including exchanges that operate a retail liquidity program, would
allow those orders to receive the best execution quality and potential
price improvement. The proposal also promotes transparency by
disseminating additional order information. In addition, providing
Members the ability to elect that their routed Retail Order not be
identified as Retail [sic] provides Member flexibility with regard to
the handling of their Retail Orders by permitting them to elect that
their Retail Order not be identified as Retail when routed to an away
Trading Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal would enhance competition for retail order flow by enabling
Members to identify their Retail Orders as Retail when they are routed
to an away Trading Center, including exchanges that operate a retail
liquidity program.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would
permit the Exchange to identify Retail Orders as Retail when routed to
an away Trading Center, including exchanges that operate a retail
liquidity program, enabling the orders to receive potential price
improvement. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of

investors and the public interest.\16\ The Commission hereby grants the
Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2015-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-40 and
should be submitted on or before October 1, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22739 Filed 9-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40287-40288]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17447]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0573; FRL-9982-04-Region 1]

Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System
Supervision Programs for the State of Connecticut and the State of New
Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Connecticut and the
State of New Hampshire are in the process of revising their respective
approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) programs to meet the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

DATES: A request for a public hearing must be submitted on or before
September 13, 2018 to the Regional Administrator.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following office(s):

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
For state-specific documents: Connecticut Department of Public Health,
Drinking Water Section, 410 Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT 06134; and New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Drinking Water and
Groundwater Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Weiss, U.S. EPA-New England,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The State of Connecticut has adopted drinking water regulations for
the Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (63 FR 69390)
promulgated on December 16, 1998, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4,
2006. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined
that the State of Connecticut's Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.
Therefore, EPA intends to approve Connecticut's PWSS program revision
for these rules.
    The State of New Hampshire has adopted drinking water regulations
for the Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on November 8,
2006, the Lead and Copper Short Term Revisions Rule (72 FR 57782)
promulgated on October 10, 2007, the Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR
10269) promulgated February 13, 2013, the Stage 1 Disinfectant and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (63 FR 69390) promulgated on December 16,
1998, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71
FR 388) promulgated on January 4, 2006. After review of the submitted
documentation, EPA has determined that the state of New Hampshire's
Groundwater Rule, Lead and Copper Short-Term Revisions Rule, Revised
Total Coliform Rule, Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule are
no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. In
addition, EPA's primary enforcement responsibility regulations require
states that accept electronic documents to have adopted regulations
consistent with 40 CFR part 3 (Electronic reporting). New Hampshire
accepts electronic documents and is in the process of adopting the
necessary regulations that will supplement the State's legal authority
under the State's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Therefore, EPA
intends to approve New Hampshire's PWSS program revision for these
rules.

II. Public Hearing Requests

    All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of the
EPA determinations. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing
may be denied by the Regional Administrator.
    However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by
this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate
request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does
not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own motion, this

determination shall become final and effective September 13, 2018. Any
request for a public hearing shall include the following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination; (3) information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such hearing; and (4) the signature of the
individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of
an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible
official of the organization or other entity.

    Authority: Section 1401 (42 U.S.C. 300f) and Section 1413 (42
U.S.C. 300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996),
and (40 CFR 142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1--New England.
[FR Doc. 2018-17447 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Placeholder: confidential business information item

CA Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers CUE Application for 2008

For more information please contact Aaron Levy by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


Record of Communication

Subject:  Logistics for Cylinder Analysis

On December 7, 2009, Lyn Gameson of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) responded to an inquiry from John Schakenbach of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Protocol Gas
Verification Program (PGVP) logistics that would allow accurate, low
cost, and fast cylinder analysis.

EPA Assumptions:

a.)  We believe there are approximately 14 specialty gas companies that
market EPA Protocol gases; some of these companies have multiple
production sites.  We estimate there are about 30 EPA Protocol gas
production sites in the U.S.

b.)  Each of these production sites would enter into an agreement with
NIST each year to analyze cylinders and produce and send to EPA reports
and to determine whether the certification label accompanying each
cylinder meets the requirements of the Traceability Protocol for up to 4

cylinders from each production site, for a total of 120 cylinders.

c.)  Therefore, in less than one year, each year, NIST would need to
analyze and produce and send to EPA reports for up to 120 cylinders, and
determine whether the certification label accompanying each cylinder
meets the requirements of the Traceability Protocol.

d.)  EPA (through our contractor) would send NIST 6 batches of 20
cylinders each.  Each batch would have cylinders of similar composition
and concentration.

EPA Questions:

-  Is 20 cylinders per batch optimum for you?

-  How long should we wait between batch shipments?

-  Assuming the appropriate interval between batches, how long would it
take NIST to complete all of the tasks in b.) above for all 120
cylinders?

-  Can cylinder batches arrive at NIST and can analysis start at any
time during the year?

NIST Assumptions:

a)	All audit cylinders will be purchased by the contractor and stored by
them.

b)	We will be sent a list of the cylinders purchased, including copies
of the vendor Certificates of Analysis.

c)	We will inform the contractor what cylinders to ship and when - most
probably in batches of 20 cylinders of the same range.

d)	The audit gas mixtures will be in three ranges, currently:

		High: CO2 at 20%; NO at 900 ppm; SO2 at 1000 ppm

		Mid: CO2 at 12%; NO at 400 ppm; SO2 at 500 ppm

		Low: CO2 at 5%; NO at 50 ppm; SO2 at 50 ppm

e)	We understand that the gas mixture compositions may change in the
future.  If the following hold true for future changes, then there will
be little or no impact on our schedule:

		 e1)	No more than three gas mixture ranges

		 e2)	The concentration for each component falls under the following
ranges:

		 	CO: 2 - 20%

		 	NO: 50 - 1000 ppm

		 	SO2: 50 - 1000 ppm

If future changes fall outside these assumptions, then we need to be
informed as soon as possible so that we can discuss the impact on our
schedule (and costs).

f)	No impurity (including NOx) analysis is required.

NIST Answers:

If the above assumptions hold, then the answers are:

Question:  Is 20 cylinders per batch optimum for you?

Answer:  Yes.

Question:  How long should we wait between batch shipments?

Answer:  As per our instructions / schedule. Typically, two weeks.

Question:  Assuming the appropriate interval between batches, how long
would it take NIST to complete all of the tasks in b.) above for all 120
cylinders?

Answer:  Six months (including report write up) - maximum.

Question:  Can cylinder batches arrive at NIST and can analysis start at
any time during the year?

Answer:  As per our instructions / schedule. We are planning to be in
position to take delivery of the first batch in early February.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2