1482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of the 

rule and if that part can be severed from 

the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 19, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart Q—Iowa 

■ 2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘CHAPTER V’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA–APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567] 

*******

Polk County 

CHAPTER V Polk County 

Board of 

Health Rules 

and Regulations Air Pollution Chapter V.

08/05/13 January 12, 2015 

[Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Article I, Section 5–2, definition of ‘‘variance,’’ ‘‘anaerobic lagoon,’’ and 

‘‘greenhouse gases’’; Article III, Incineration and Open Burning, Section 5–7(d) Variance Application; Article VI, Sections 5–16(n), (o) 

and (p); Article VIII; Article IX, Sections 5–27(3) and (4); Article X, 

Section 5–28, subsections (a) through (c), and Article X, Section 5– 

35(b)(5); Article XIII; and Article XVI, Section 5–75 are not part of 

the SIP. Article VI, Section 5–17, adopted by Polk County on 7/26/

2011, is not part of the SIP, and the previously approved version of 

Article VI, Section 5–17 remains part of the SIP. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00080 Filed 1–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0813; FRL–9921–22– 

Region 9] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as 

Serious Nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to reclassify 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate 

nonattainment area, including areas of 

Indian country within it, as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) based on EPA’s determination 

that the area cannot practicably attain 

these NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2015. Upon 

final reclassification as a Serious area, 

California will be required to submit a 

Serious area plan including a 

demonstration that the plan provides for 

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards in the SJV area by 

the applicable attainment date, which is 

no later than December 31, 2015, or by 

the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable, in accordance with the 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must arrive by 

February 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0813, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: lee.anita@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Anita Lee; Air 

Planning Office (AIR–2); U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9; 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket 

(docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0813) for this proposed rule is available 

electronically on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1483 

1See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 

50.7. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 

lowering the level to 35 mg/m3. See 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective 

March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5

NAAQS by lowering the level to 12 mg/m3. See 78 

FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In 

this preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard of 65 mg/m3 and annual standard of 

15.0 mg/m3 as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2See EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate 

Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P– 

99/002bF, October 2004. 

3See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). 

4See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 

5 Id. 

6See 40 CFR 81.305. 

7For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

8See 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 

9See id. at 69924. 

10See id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the 

attainment date for a nonattainment area is ‘‘the 

date by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five 

years from the date such area was designated 

nonattainment,’’ except that EPA may extend the 

attainment date as appropriate for a period no 

greater than ten years from the date of designation 

as nonattainment, considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 

pollution control measures. CAA section 

172(a)(2)(A); see also 40 CFR 51.1004(a) and (b). 

11See 72 FR 20583 (April 25, 2007), codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. This rule was premised 

on EPA’s prior interpretation of the Act as allowing 

for implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS solely 

pursuant to the general nonattainment area 

provisions of subpart 1 and not the more specific 

provisions for particulate matter nonattainment 

areas in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. 

12See 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 

13See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 972–3958, lee.anita@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Proposed Action 

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM2.5 Air Quality 

Monitoring Data 

III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment 

and Applicable Attainment Dates 

IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian 

Country 

V. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements 

VI. Summary of Proposed Action and 

Request for Public Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Proposed Action 

On July 18, 1997, EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less, including an annual 

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations.1 EPA established these 

standards after considering substantial 

evidence from numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5

concentrations above the levels of these 

standards. 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms, as well as new evidence for 

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular 

health. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children.2

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(primary PM2.5 or direct PM2.5) or can be 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5).3

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to 

designate areas throughout the nation as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA published 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

using air quality monitoring data for the 

three-year periods of 2001–2003 and 

2002–2004.4 These designations became 

effective on April 5, 2005.5 EPA 

designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 

area as nonattainment for both the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard (15.0 mg/m3) and 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard (65 mg/ 

m3).6

The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles 

and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern.7 The 

area is home to 4 million people and is 

the nation’s leading agricultural region. 

Stretching over 250 miles from north to 

south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is 

partially enclosed by the Coast 

Mountain range to the west, the 

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and 

the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or District) has primary responsibility 

for developing plans to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS in this area. 

The District works cooperatively with 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) in preparing these plans. 

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV.8 We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ‘‘SJV PM2.5 SIP.’’ On 

November 9, 2011, EPA approved all 

elements of the SJV PM2.5 SIP except for 

the contingency measures, which EPA 

disapproved.9 As part of this action and 

pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), 

EPA granted California’s request for an 

extension of the attainment date for the 

SJV area to April 5, 2015.10 EPA took 

these actions in accordance with the 

‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule,’’ which EPA issued in April 2007 

to assist states in their development of 

SIPs to meet the Act’s attainment 

planning requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS (hereafter ‘‘2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’).11 In July 2013, 

the State submitted a revised PM2.5

contingency measure plan for the SJV, 

which EPA fully approved in May 

2014.12

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its 

decision in a challenge by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to 

EPA’s 2007 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule.13 In NRDC, the court held that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 standards solely pursuant to the 

general implementation requirements of 

subpart 1, without also considering the 

requirements specific to nonattainment 

areas for particulate matter with a 

diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) in 

subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA. 

The court reasoned that the plain 

meaning of the CAA requires 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14 Id. 15See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 16 Id. 17 Id. at 31569. 18 Id.; see also 79 FR 29327 at 29329 (May 22, 

2014) (noting that ‘‘[a]bsent an EPA rulemaking to 

withdraw or revise [the November 9, 2011] final 

rule, which NRDC does not compel, our final action 

on the SJV PM2.5 SIP remains effective . . .’’). 19Section 188(b)(1) of the Act is a general 

expression of delegated rulemaking authority. See 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992) (hereafter ‘‘General Preamble’’) at 13537, n. 

15. Although subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 

188(b)(1) mandate that EPA reclassify by specified 

timeframes any areas that it determines appropriate 

for reclassification by those dates, these 

subparagraphs do not restrict the general authority 

but simply specify that, at a minimum, EPA’s 

authority must be exercised at certain times. See id. 

20See letter dated September 25, 2014 from Seyed 

Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control 

Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, ‘‘RE: San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin 

Valley as a Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for 

the Federal 1997 PM2.5 Standard,’’ attaching 

Memorandum dated August 21, 2014 from Seyed 

Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO and Sheraz 

Gill, Project Coordinator, to the SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board, ‘‘RE: Item Number 9: Review and 

Approve Actions to Address Air Quality Impacts 

Resulting from the Exceptional Weather Conditions 

Caused by the Recent Drought’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Sadredin Memo’’). 

21See 40 CFR 50.7; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N; 40 CFR part 53; 40 

CFR part 58; and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, 

D, and E. 

22See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N (section 1.0). 

23See id. 

24See U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, 

PM2.5 Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

values.html (‘‘PM25_DesignValues_20112013_

FINAL_08_28_14’’) (hereafter ‘‘2013 p.m.2.5 Design 

Value Reports’’). The Bakersfield monitor also 

recorded the nation’s second highest annual PM2.5

NAAQS design value (17.3 mg/m3) during this 

period. See id. 

25See 76 FR 41338 at 41339 (July 13, 2011) 

(proposed action on SJV PM2.5 Plan). 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

standards under subpart 4 because PM2.5

particles fall within the statutory 

definition of PM10 and are thus subject 

to the same statutory requirements as 

PM10. The court remanded the rule and 

instructed EPA ‘‘to repromulgate these 

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent 

with this opinion.’’14

Consistent with the NRDC decision, 

on June 2, 2014, EPA published a final 

rule classifying all areas currently 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as 

Moderate under subpart 4.15 EPA also 

established a deadline of December 31, 

2014 for states to submit attainmentrelated and nonattainment new source 

review (NNSR) SIP elements required 

for these areas pursuant to subpart 4.16

This rulemaking did not affect any 

action that EPA had previously taken 

under section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP 

for a PM2.5 nonattainment area.17

Accordingly, EPA’s previous approval 

of the April 5, 2015 attainment date for 

the SJV area remains in effect.18

Under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, 

prior to an area’s attainment date, EPA 

has discretionary authority to reclassify 

as a Serious nonattainment area ‘‘any 

area that the Administrator determines 

cannot practicably attain’’ the PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area 

attainment date.19 On September 25, 

2014, the District requested that EPA 

reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as 

Serious nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. This request included 

a demonstration that the SJV cannot 

practicably attain the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard by the April 5, 2015 attainment 

date.20

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM2.5 Air 

Quality Monitoring Data 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality currently meets the PM2.5

NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a 

nonattainment area and entered into 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state/local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to 

AQS. Monitoring agencies annually 

certify that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, 

EPA relies primarily on data in AQS 

when determining the attainment status 

of areas.21

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7 

and in accordance with part 50, 

appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard is met when the ‘‘annual PM2.5

NAAQS design value’’ (based on the 3- 

year average of PM2.5 annual mean mass 

concentrations) 22 is less than or equal to 

15.0 mg/m3 at each eligible monitoring 

site. The 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard is 

met when the ‘‘24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

design value’’ (based on the 3-year 

average of annual 98th percentile 24- 

hour PM2.5 mass concentrations) 23 is 

less than or equal to 65 mg/m3 at each 

eligible monitoring site. 

A. PM2.5 Trends in the SJV 

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS design value levels in the SJV 

are the highest recorded in the United 

States at 18.1 mg/m3 (Madera) and 65 mg/ 

m3 (Bakersfield), respectively, for the 

2011–2013 period.24 The levels and 

composition of ambient PM2.5 in the SJV 

differ by season.25 Higher PM2.5

concentrations occur during the winter, 

between late November and February, 

when the SJV experiences extended 

periods of stagnant weather with cold 

foggy conditions which encourage wood 

burning, a source of directly emitted 

particulates (direct PM2.5), and are 

conducive to the formation of 

ammonium nitrate from the reaction of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) with ammonia. 

Tables 1 and 2 show the annual and 24- 

hour concentrations recorded at PM2.5

monitoring sites in the SJV during the 

2005–2013 period. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES a IN μg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV 

Site AQS ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Bakersfield: 

Planz .................................................. 60290016 18.4 18.9 20.3 21.5 22.6 21.2 18.2 15.6 17.3 

CA Ave ............................................... 60290014 18.0 18.5 19.6 20.9 21.0 18.4 16.5 14.5 16.4 

Golden State Hwy .............................. 60290010 19.0 18.6 19.2 18.8 19.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Corcoran .................................................... 60310004 17.0 17.2 17.6 17.0 17.3 17.1 16.2 n/a n/a 

Hanford ...................................................... 60311004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.8 17.0 

Visalia ........................................................ 61072002 18.0 18.2 19.3 19.7 18.8 16.5 15.2 14.8 16.6 

Fresno: 

Pacific ................................................. 60195025 17.2 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.0 14.9 14.5 13.8 14.7 

Garland .............................................. 60190011 16.9 16.6 17.4 17.7 17.1 15.2 14.5 b 14.3 b 15.4 

Clovis ......................................................... 60195001 17.1 16.4 16.4 16.3 17.0 16.4 17.0 16.0 16.4 

Tranquility .................................................. 60192009 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.4 7.8 

Madera ...................................................... 60392010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 19.0 18.1 

Merced: 

M Street ............................................. 60472510 15.0 14.7 14.7 n/a n/a n/a 11.7 10.4 11.1 

Coffee ................................................. 60470003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 18.2 14.3 13.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1485 

26See Sadredin Memo at 2–6. 

27 Id. at Table 3. 

28 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.4. 

29See Sadredin Memo at Table 4. 

30 Id. 

31See Memorandum from Elfego Felix and Scott 

Bohning to Docket entitled ‘‘Practicability of SJV 

2014 attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ dated 

December 10, 2014 with attachment entitled ‘‘SJV 

PM2 5 1997 std impracticable 2014–12–10.xlsx’’ 

(hereafter ‘‘Felix and Bohning Memo’’). 

32The small differences between the District’s 

and EPA’s calculations of ‘‘maximum 2014’’ values 

are due to the use of different rounding 

conventions. EPA’s calculations of maximum 2014 

values are based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, which provides that 

intermediate calculations are not rounded, and that 

a design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 mg/ 

m3 is rounded down to 15.0 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, section 4.3. In computing the 

maximum 2014 concentration consistent with 

attainment and consistent with 2012 and 2013 

Continued 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES a IN μg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV—Continued 

Site AQS ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Turlock ....................................................... 60990006 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.3 14.9 15.7 

Modesto ..................................................... 60990005 14.0 14.1 14.6 15.3 14.7 n/a n/a 12.9 13.6 

Manteca ..................................................... 60772010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.2 

Stockton .................................................... 60771002 13.1 12.9 12.8 13.5 12.9 12.1 11.1 11.4 13.8 

Source: 2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports. The term ‘‘n/a’’ means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 

CFR part 50, appendix N). aThe annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. 

For example, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at 

that monitor. The 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 15.0 μg/m3 or less. bThe Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year 2012. The design 

value reported represents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in early 2012. 

TABLE 2—24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES a IN μg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV 

Site AQS ID 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Bakersfield: 

Planz .................................................. 60290016 54 60 68 70 70 65 55 47 60 

CA Ave ............................................... 60290014 58 62 66 66 68 62 62 58 65 

Golden State Hwy .............................. 60290010 60 64 69 64 66 64 n/a n/a n/a 

Corcoran .................................................... 60310004 55 58 61 52 53 49 46 43 49 

Hanford ...................................................... 60311004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 54 60 

Visalia ........................................................ 61072002 55 56 58 57 59 51 47 47 56 

Fresno: 

Pacific ................................................. 60195025 57 59 61 52 50 43 48 53 63 

Garland .............................................. 60190011 60 58 63 58 60 54 58 b 59 b 62 

Clovis ......................................................... 60195001 55 56 58 54 53 47 54 54 58 

Tranquility .................................................. 60192009 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 31 30 

Madera ...................................................... 60392010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51 52 

Merced: 

M Street ............................................. 60472510 45 45 48 50 51 45 39 40 49 

Coffee ................................................. 60470003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 43 41 42 

Turlock ....................................................... 60990006 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 51 49 53 

Modesto ..................................................... 60990005 49 51 55 54 55 49 50 44 51 

Manteca ..................................................... 60772010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 38 37 

Stockton .................................................... 60771002 40 41 45 51 50 44 38 36 45 

Source: 2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports. The term ‘‘n/a’’ means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 

CFR part 50, appendix N). aThe 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix N. For example, the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations for 

2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 65 μg/m3 or less. bThe Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year 2012. The design 

value reported represents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in early 2012. 

B. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 Standard by April 5, 2015 

In its September 25, 2014 letter to 

EPA, the District provided ambient air 

quality data showing that the SJV area 

cannot attain the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

standard by April 5, 2015.26

Specifically, the District provided 

annual average PM2.5 concentrations 

recorded at monitoring sites in the SJV 

for 2012 and 2013, and then calculated 

the maximum 2014 annual average 

concentration for each monitoring site 

that would result in a 3-year average 

PM2.5 concentration of 15.0 mg/m3 at 

that site. According to the District, the 

maximum 2014 annual average 

concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz 

site (which recorded the area’s highest 

annual concentrations in 2013) that will 

enable the site to show a design value 

at or below 15.0 mg/m3 for 2014 is 7.5 

mg/m3.27 The annual average value for a 

given year is calculated based on the 

quarterly averages for that year.28 The 

District reported that the average PM2.5

concentration measured at the 

Bakersfield-Planz site in the first quarter 

of 2014, however, was 29.7 mg/m3.29

Thus, according to the District, average 

PM2.5 concentrations at this monitoring 

site for the remaining three quarters of 

2014 would have to be zero in order to 

result in a design value at or below 15.0 

mg/m3 for 2014.30 The remaining three 

quarters of 2014 include November and 

December, which, like other winter 

months in the SJV, tend to experience 

high PM2.5 concentrations. These 

preliminary data and analyses indicate 

that it is not possible for the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site to show an annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 

15.0 mg/m3 by April 5, 2015. 

EPA also independently evaluated 

preliminary 2014 PM2.5 air quality data 

available in AQS as of August 2014 to 

assess the District’s representations.31

Table 3 shows four monitoring locations 

for which preliminary 2014 AQS data 

already indicate that the 3-year average 

PM2.5 concentration for 2012–2014 will 

likely be well above 15.0 mg/m3. 

Specifically, for each of these 

monitoring sites, EPA calculated the 

maximum 2014 average PM2.5

concentration that would enable the site 

to show a 2014 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

design value at or below 15.0 mg/m3.32

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

annual mean concentrations, EPA did not round the 

2012 and 2013 means in the intermediate steps of 

the calculation, and used 15.04 as the highest 

design value consistent with the standard. In 

contrast, the Sadredin memo rounded 2012 and 

2013 means to one decimal place initially, and used 

15.00 as the highest attaining design value. 

33See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment. 

34Any reclassification of a Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area as Serious based on a 

determination that the area cannot practicably 

attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date 

will be based on the facts and circumstances of the 

particular nonattainment area at issue. Monitored 

air quality and the reductions in ambient 

concentrations that the area would need to achieve 

in order to monitor attainment are important 

factors. Another important factor is whether 

additional control measures could be implemented 

in time and reduce emissions adequately to attain 

the NAAQS. Given the significant reductions in 

ambient PM2.5 levels that the SJV nonattainment 

area would need to monitor attainment, and the 

extremely short time remaining before the 

applicable attainment date for this area (April 5, 

2015), EPA focused its analysis in this proposal on 

air quality-related information. 

35The Sadredin Memo cites weather conditions 

associated with the extreme drought in California, 

including low precipitation, high stagnation, and 

strong inversions, among the reasons for the high 

PM2.5 concentrations observed in the winter of 

2013–2014. See Sadredin Memo at 3–7. 

36 Identification of the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration is based on the number of creditable 

samples in a given year. See 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, section 4.5. Specifically, in any year 

for which there are at least 351 creditable samples, 

the 98th percentile is the 8th highest concentration, 

and as the number of creditable samples decreases 

the 98th percentile concentration increases. See id. 

at Table 1. To calculate a low estimate of the 98th 

percentile 24-hour concentration for 2014 at each 

monitoring site, EPA assumed conservatively that 

preliminary 2014 monitoring data available in AQS 

(see Table 4) represented the highest values for 

2014 (i.e., no higher values would be recorded at 

these sites for the remainder of 2014) and that the 

total number of creditable samples in 2014 would 

be consistent with the sampling frequency observed 

as of August 7, 2014. See Felix and Bohning Memo 

and attachment. We note that 2014 monitoring data 

is not due for certification until May 1, 2015. See 

40 CFR 58.15. 

As shown in Table 3, the 2014 annual 

average PM2.5 concentration at the 

Visalia, Corcoran, and Hanford sites 

would have to be nearly 20 percent 

lower than the lowest annual averages 

observed at each of those sites during 

the 2003–2013 period, and the 2014 

annual average PM2.5 concentration at 

the Bakersfield-Planz site would have to 

be nearly 50 percent lower than the 

lowest annual average observed during 

that same period, in order to result in a 

2014 annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value 

at or below 15.0 mg/m3.33

TABLE 3—PRELIMINARY RECORDED 2014 ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN μg/m3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN

SJV AND COMPARISON TO LOWEST RECORDED CONCENTRATIONS

Average 

recorded 

2014 a

EPA estimate for 

max 2014 annual 

average 

allowed to 

attain b

Lowest 

recorded 

annual 

average (year) b

Percent 

difference 

between max 

2014 and 

lowest 

recorded annual 

verage 

Bakersfield—Planz ........................................................................... 29.7 7.7 14.5 (2011) 47 

Visalia .............................................................................................. 27.9 11.4 13.6 (2010) 16 

Corcoran .......................................................................................... 22.9 13.0 15.6 (2013) 16 

Hanford ............................................................................................ 18.7 12.1 14.8 (2012) 18 

aSource: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Combined Site Sample Values Report, PM2.5, 2014 (Report Date: August 7, 2014) (preliminary 2014 

1st quarter data for all identified sites and 2nd quarter data for Hanford site). bSee Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment. 

If 2014 monitoring data is timely 

certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 CFR 

58.15) and EPA’s determination of 

whether the SJV area meets the PM2.5

NAAQS occurs after this date, the 

determination would be based on 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

period as this would be the most recent 

3-year period for which complete, 

quality-assured and certified monitoring 

data is available. Because a 

determination of attainment requires 

that each eligible monitoring site in the 

area show a design value at or below the 

level of the PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR 

part 50, § 50.7 and appendix N), a 2014 

design value above this level at one 

eligible monitor would render 

attainment by April 5, 2015 impossible. 

In sum, air quality data for the 2003– 

2014 period indicate that it is not 

practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz 

monitoring site to show an annual PM2.5

NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 

mg/m3 by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV 

area cannot practicably attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by this date.34

C. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard by April 5, 

2015 

The District’s September 25, 2014 

letter did not specifically address the 

SJV area’s ability to attain the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard by April 5, 2015. EPA 

independently reviewed ambient air 

quality data available in AQS, however, 

to consider whether the SJV area can 

practicably attain the 24-hour standard 

by this date. 

Table 4 shows the 98th percentile 24- 

hour average PM2.5 concentrations 

recorded in 2012 and 2013 at selected 

monitoring sites. The 98th percentile 

24-hour concentrations in 2013 were 

higher than in 2012, and in some cases 

the 2013 value was significantly higher 

than the 2012 value, e.g., at the 

Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site.35

Based on these observed 98th percentile 

values in 2012 and 2013, EPA 

calculated for each of these monitoring 

sites the maximum 98th percentile 24- 

hour concentration in 2014 that would 

enable the site to show a 2014 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 

65 mg/m3. EPA also calculated a low 

estimate of the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration for 2014 at each of these 

sites, based on preliminary data 

reported to AQS for the first quarter of 

2014 and a conservative assumption 

that 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

remain below these levels for the 

remainder of the year at each 

monitoring site.36 As shown in Table 4, 

EPA’s low estimates of the 98th 

percentile concentrations for 2014 at the 

two monitoring sites in Bakersfield 

(Planz and California Avenue) already 

exceed the maximum 2014 values that 

would enable these two sites to show a 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value for 

2014 at or below 65 mg/m3. Thus, these 

two monitoring sites in Bakersfield 

cannot practicably show a 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS design value at or below 65 mg/ 

m3 by April 5, 2015. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1487 

37See note 34 supra. 

38See 79 FR 31566 at 31587, 31593 (June 2, 2014). 

39See notes 17 and 18, supra. 

40For a general discussion of EPA’s interpretation 

of the reclassification provisions in section 

188(b)(1) of the Act, see the General Preamble, 57 

FR 13498 at 13537–38 (April 16, 1992). 

41See 70 FR 944 at 956, 957 (January 5, 2005). 

42For a discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the 

requirements of section 188(e), see ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans for Serious PM10

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers 

for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 

1994) (hereafter ‘‘Addendum’’) at 42002; 65 FR 

19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on PM10

Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252 

(October 2, 2001) (proposed action on PM10 Plan for 

Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 

2002) (final action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa 

County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, 

amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding 

EPA action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa County, 

Arizona but generally upholding EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA section 188(e)). 

TABLE 4—PRELIMINARY RECORDED 2014 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN μg/m3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN SJV 

AND CALCULATION OF 98TH PERCENTILE VALUES

98th percentile 

in 2012 a

98th percentile 

in 2013 a

Low estimate 

of 98th 

percentile in 

2014 b

Max 98th 

percentile 

allowed in 

2014 to 

attain b

Bakersfield—Planz ........................................................................................... 40.6 96.7 64.4 58.9

Bakersfield—CA Ave ....................................................................................... 56.4 71.8 72.6 68.0 

Hanford ............................................................................................................ 48.3 67.6 76.7 80.3 

Fresno—Pacific ................................................................................................ 51.3 71.6 61.8 73.3 

Fresno—Garland ............................................................................................. 52.6 63.8 65.5 79.8 

aSource: See 2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports. bSee Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment (calculations based on preliminary 2014 1st quarter data for all identified sites and 2nd quarter 

data for Hanford site). 

If 2014 monitoring data is timely 

certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 CFR 

58.15) and EPA’s determination of 

whether the SJV area meets the PM2.5

NAAQS occurs after this date, the 

determination would be based on 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

period as this would be the most recent 

3-year period for which complete, 

quality-assured and certified monitoring 

data is available. Because a 

determination of attainment requires 

that each eligible monitoring site in the 

area show a design value at or below the 

level of the PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR 

part 50, § 50.7 and appendix N), a 2014 

design value above this level at one 

eligible monitor would render 

attainment by April 5, 2015 impossible. 

In sum, air quality data for the 2003– 

2014 period indicate that it is not 

practicable for the two Bakersfield 

monitoring sites to show a 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 

65 mg/m3 by April 5, 2015, and that the 

SJV area cannot practicably attain the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by this 

date.37

III. Reclassification as Serious 

Nonattainment and Applicable 

Attainment Dates 

Section 188 of the Act outlines the 

process for classification of PM2.5

nonattainment areas and establishes the 

applicable attainment dates. In 

accordance with section 188 and in 

response to the NRDC decision, EPA 

classified the SJV area as Moderate 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, effective July 2, 2014.38 This 

classification rulemaking did not affect 

any prior action that EPA had taken 

under CAA section 110(k) on a PM2.5

attainment plan for a nonattainment 

area. Accordingly, the April 5, 2015 

attainment date that EPA approved on 

November 9, 2011 for the SJV area 

remains the applicable attainment date 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

area.39

Under the plain meaning of the terms 

of section 188(b)(1) of the Act, EPA has 

general authority to reclassify at any 

time before the applicable attainment 

date any area that EPA determines 

cannot practicably attain the standard 

by such date. Accordingly, section 

188(b)(1) of the Act is a general 

expression of delegated rulemaking 

authority. In addition, subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate 

that EPA reclassify ‘‘appropriate’’ PM10

nonattainment areas at specified time 

frames (i.e., by December 31, 1991 for 

the initial PM10 nonattainment areas, 

and within 18 months after the SIP 

submittal due date for subsequent 

nonattainment areas). These 

subparagraphs do not restrict EPA’s 

general authority but simply specify 

that, at a minimum, it must be exercised 

at certain times.40 In accordance with 

section 188(b)(1) of the Act, EPA is 

proposing to reclassify the SJV area from 

Moderate to Serious nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards of 15.0 and 65 mg/m3, 

respectively, based on EPA’s 

determination that the SJV area cannot 

practicably attain these standards by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2015. 

Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the 

attainment date for a Serious area ‘‘shall 

be as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than the end of the tenth calendar 

year beginning after the area’s 

designation as nonattainment. . . .’’ The 

SJV area was designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 PM2.5 standards effective 

April 5, 2005.41 Therefore, upon final 

reclassification of the SJV area as a 

Serious nonattainment area, the latest 

permissible attainment date under 

section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for purposes 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in this area, 

will be December 31, 2015. 

Under section 188(e) of the Act, a 

state may apply to EPA for a single 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

date by up to 5 years, which EPA may 

grant if the State satisfies certain 

conditions. Before EPA may extend the 

attainment date for a Serious area under 

section 188(e), the State must: (1) Apply 

for an extension of the attainment date 

beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) 

demonstrate that attainment by the 

statutory attainment date is 

impracticable; (3) have complied with 

all requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the plan for the 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; and (5) submit a demonstration of 

attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable.42 As more 

fully described in Section V of this 

proposal, EPA anticipates that 

California may choose to submit a 

request for an extension of the Serious 

area attainment date consistent with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

43 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 

refers to: ‘‘(a) all land within the limits of any 

Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (b) all dependent 

Indian communities within the borders of the 

United States whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and 

whether within or without the limits of a state, and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which 

have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same.’’ 

44We sent letters to tribal officials of seven tribes 

regarding government-to-government consultation 

on September 30, 2014. EPA inadvertently did not 

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe, therefore, 

concurrently with this proposed action, EPA is 

sending a letter to the chairperson of the Tejon 

Indian Tribe inviting consultation on our proposed 

reclassification of the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

All eight letters can be found in the docket for this 

proposed action. 

these requirements when it submits a 

Serious area attainment plan for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards for this area. 

IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian 

Country 43

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area: the Big 

Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria 

of Mono Indians of California, the North 

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Picayune Rancheria of 

Chukchansi Indians of California, the 

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi 

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain 

Rancheria of California, the Tejon 

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian 

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. 

We have considered the relevance of 

our proposal to reclassify the SJV 

nonattainment area as Serious for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards to each tribe 

located within the SJV area. We believe 

that the same facts and circumstances 

that support the proposal for the nonIndian country lands also support the 

proposal for Indian country located 

within the SJV nonattainment area. EPA 

is therefore proposing to exercise our 

authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) 

to reclassify areas of Indian country 

geographically located in the SJV 

nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) 

broadly authorizes EPA to reclassify a 

nonattainment area—including any area 

of Indian country located within such 

area—that EPA determines cannot 

practicably attain the relevant standard 

by the applicable attainment date. 

Elevated PM2.5 levels are a pervasive 

pollution problem throughout the SJV 

area. Directly-emitted PM2.5 and its 

precursor pollutants (NOX, SOX, VOC, 

and ammonia) are emitted throughout a 

nonattainment area and can be 

transported throughout that 

nonattainment area. Therefore, 

boundaries for nonattainment areas are 

drawn to encompass both areas with 

direct sources of the pollution problem 

as well as nearby areas in the same 

airshed. Initial classifications of 

nonattainment areas are coterminous 

with, that is, they match exactly, their 

boundaries. EPA believes this approach 

best ensures public health protection 

from the adverse effects of PM2.5

pollution. Therefore, it is generally 

counterproductive from an air quality 

and planning perspective to have a 

disparate classification for an area 

located within the boundaries of a larger 

nonattainment area, such as the areas of 

Indian country contained within the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Moreover, 

violations of the 1997 PM2.5 standards, 

which are measured and modeled 

throughout the nonattainment area, as 

well as shared meteorological 

conditions, would dictate the same 

conclusion. Furthermore, emissions 

increases in portions of a PM2.5

nonattainment area that are left 

classified as Moderate could counteract 

the effects of efforts to attain the 

standards within the overall area 

because less stringent requirements 

would apply in those Moderate portions 

relative to those that would apply in the 

portions of the area reclassified to 

Serious. 

Uniformity of classification 

throughout a nonattainment area is thus 

a guiding principle and premise when 

an area is being reclassified. Equally, if 

EPA believes it is likely that a given 

nonattainment area will not attain the 

PM2.5 standards by the applicable 

attainment date, then it may be an 

additional reason why it is appropriate 

to maintain a uniform classification 

within the area and thus to reclassify 

the Indian country together with the 

balance of the nonattainment area. In 

this particular case, we are proposing to 

determine, based on the State’s 

demonstration and current ambient air 

quality trends, that the SJV 

nonattainment area in its entirety 

cannot practicably attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards by the applicable area 

attainment date of April 5, 2015. 

In light of the considerations outlined 

above that support retention of a 

uniformly-classified PM2.5

nonattainment area, and our finding that 

is impracticable for the area to attain by 

the applicable attainment date, we 

propose to reclassify the areas of Indian 

country areas within the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area as Serious for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

The effect of reclassification would be 

to lower the applicable ‘‘major source’’ 

emissions threshold for purposes of the 

nonattainment new source review 

program and the Title V operating 

permit program from its current level of 

100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections 

189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B)) thus subjecting 

more new or modified stationary 

sources to these requirements. The 

reclassification may also lower the de 

minimis threshold under the CAA’s 

General Conformity requirements (40 

CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 

70 tpy. Under the General Conformity 

requirements, Federal agencies bear the 

responsibility of determining 

conformity of actions in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas that require 

Federal permits, approvals, or funding. 

Such permits, approvals or funding by 

Federal agencies for projects in these 

areas of Indian country may be more 

difficult to obtain because of the lower 

de minimis thresholds. 

Given the potential implications of 

the reclassification, EPA has contacted 

tribal officials to invite government-togovernment consultation on this 

rulemaking effort.44 EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed rule from tribal officials. We 

note that although eligible tribes may 

opt to seek EPA approval of relevant 

tribal programs under the CAA, none of 

the affected tribes will be required to 

submit an implementation plan to 

address this reclassification. 

V. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP 

Requirements 

Upon reclassification as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, California will be required to 

submit additional SIP revisions to 

satisfy the statutory requirements that 

apply to Serious areas, including the 

requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title 

I of the Act. 

The Serious area SIP elements that 

California will be required to submit are 

as follows: 

1. Provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM), 

including best available control 

technology (BACT) for stationary 

sources, for the control of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors shall be 

implemented no later than 4 years after 

the area is reclassified (CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B)); 

2. a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015, or where the State is seeking 

an extension of the attainment date 

under section 188(e), a demonstration 

that attainment by December 31, 2015 is 

impracticable and that the plan provides 

for attainment by the most expeditious 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1489 

45For any Serious area, the terms ‘‘major source’’ 

and ‘‘major stationary source’’ include any 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to 

emit at least 70 tons per year of PM10 (CAA section 

189(b)(3)). 

46See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum, 59 FR 

41998 (August 16, 1994). 

alternative date practicable (CAA 

sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A)); 

3. plan provisions that require 

reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA 

section 172(c)(2)); 

4. quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every 3 years until the 

area is redesignated attainment and 

which demonstrate RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable date (CAA 

section 189(c)); 

5. provisions to assure that control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to 

major stationary sources of PM2.5

precursors, except where the State 

demonstrates to EPA’s satisfaction that 

such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed 

the standard in the area (CAA section 

189(e)); 

6. a comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 

the area (CAA section 172(c)(3)); 

7. contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to meet 

RFP or to attain by the applicable 

attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); 

and 

8. a revision to the nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) program to 

lower the applicable ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ 45 thresholds from 100 tons per 

year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 

189(b)(3)). 

Section 189(b)(2) states, in relevant 

part, that the State must submit the 

required BACM provisions ‘‘no later 

than 18 months after reclassification of 

the area as a Serious Area’’ and must 

submit the required attainment 

demonstration ‘‘no later than 4 years 

after reclassification of the area to 

Serious.’’ Thus, if a final reclassification 

of the area to Serious becomes effective 

in early 2015, the Act provides the State 

with up to 18 months after this date (i.e., 

until late 2016) to submit a BACM 

demonstration and up to 4 years after 

this date (i.e., until early 2019) to submit 

a Serious area attainment 

demonstration. Given the December 31, 

2015 Serious area attainment date for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in this area 

under CAA section 188(c)(2), however, 

EPA expects the State to adopt and 

submit a Serious area plan for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards well before the statutory 

SIP submittal deadlines in section 

189(b)(2). 

Additionally, in light of the available 

ambient air quality data and the short 

amount of time available before the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date 

under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA 

anticipates that California may choose 

to submit a request for an extension of 

the Serious area attainment date 

pursuant to section 188(e) 

simultaneously with its submittal of a 

Serious area plan for the area. If 

California fails to submit a request for 

an extension of the Serious area 

attainment date that satisfies the 

requirements of section 188(e) and the 

SJV area fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards by December 31, 2015, under 

CAA section 189(d) the State would be 

required to submit, within 12 months 

after December 31, 2015, plan revisions 

which provide for attainment of the 

PM2.5 standards and, from the date of 

such submission until attainment, for an 

annual reduction in emissions within 

the SJV area of not less than 5 percent 

of the amount of such emissions as 

reported in the most recent inventory 

prepared for the area (hereafter ‘‘section 

189(d) plan’’). If, however, California 

submits and EPA approves a section 

188(e) request for an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date prior to the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date for 

the SJV area, the requirement to submit 

a section 189(d) plan would not apply 

unless and until the SJV area fails to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards by the 

extended attainment date approved by 

EPA under section 188(e). 

The Act does not specify a deadline 

for the State’s submittal of 

nonattainment NSR program revisions 

to lower the ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) 

to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) 

following reclassification of a Moderate 

PM2.5 nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment under subpart 4. 

Pursuant to EPA’s gap-filling authority 

in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate 

the statutory control requirements in 

section 189 of the Act, EPA proposes to 

require the State to submit these 

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions no 

later than 12 months from the effective 

date of final reclassification of the SJV 

area as Serious nonattainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards. We believe this 

timeframe will give the state sufficient 

time to make this relatively 

straightforward revision to its 

nonattainment NSR SIP while assuring 

that new or modified major sources 

locating in the SJV area will be subject 

to the lower statutory major source 

thresholds expeditiously. We are 

requesting comment on this proposed 

12-month timeframe for submission of 

the nonattainment NSR SIP revisions. 

As noted above, however, if California 

intends to seek an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date, the State 

will need to submit a request that 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 188(e), including NSR SIP 

provisions to implement the major 

stationary source threshold in CAA 

section 189(b)(3), in time for EPA to 

approve such an extension prior to the 

December 31, 2015 Serious area 

attainment date. 

Given the short amount of time 

available for California’s development of 

these SIP submittals, EPA anticipates 

that the Serious area attainment 

demonstration for the SJV area may rely 

to some extent on existing 

photochemical modeling analyses 

developed for previous PM2.5 plan 

submittals. EPA commits to work with 

the District and CARB as they develop 

the necessary technical support for the 

Serious area plan and to provide 

guidance on the requirements that 

California must meet to qualify for an 

extension of the Serious area attainment 

date under CAA section 188(e). 

EPA is currently developing a 

proposed rulemaking to provide 

guidance to states on the attainment 

planning requirements in subparts 1 and 

4 of part D, title I of the Act that apply 

to areas designated nonattainment for 

PM2.5. In the interim, EPA encourages 

the State to review the General Preamble 

and Addendum for guidance on how to 

implement these statutory requirements 

in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area.46

VI. Summary of Proposed Action and 

Request for Public Comment 

Pursuant to section 188(b)(1) of the 

Act, EPA is proposing to reclassify the 

SJV nonattainment area from Moderate 

to Serious nonattainment for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

based on EPA’s determination that the 

area cannot practicably attain these 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2015. This proposed 

action is based upon EPA’s evaluation 

of ambient air quality data for the 2003– 

2014 period indicating that it is not 

practicable for certain monitoring sites 

within the SJV to show PM2.5 design 

values at or below the level of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015. Upon 

reclassification as a Serious 

nonattainment area, California will be 

required to submit a Serious area plan 

that satisfies the requirements of part D 

of title I of the Act, including a 

demonstration that the plan provides for 

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards in the SJV area by 

the applicable attainment date, which is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

1490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

no later than December 31, 2015, or by 

the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable and no later than December 

31, 2020, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA sections 189(b) 

and 188(e). 

In addition, because EPA is proposing 

to similarly reclassify areas of Indian 

country within the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

standards, consistent with our proposed 

reclassification of the surrounding nonIndian country lands, EPA has invited 

consultation with interested tribes 

concerning this issue. We note that 

although eligible tribes may seek EPA 

approval of relevant tribal programs 

under the CAA, none of the affected 

tribes will be required to submit an 

implementation plan to address this 

reclassification. 

EPA is requesting public comment on 

this proposed action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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 under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

and therefore was not submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review. Reclassification does 

not itself create any new requirements, 

and does not impose a materially 

adverse impact under Executive Order 

12866. With respect to lands under state 

jurisdiction, this proposed 

reclassification would trigger statutory 

deadlines for the state to submit Serious 

area plan elements. With respect to 

Indian country, reclassifications do not 

establish deadlines for air quality plans 

or plan revisions because tribes are not 

subject to implementation plan 

submittal deadlines that apply to states 

as a result of reclassifications. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) because it 

does not contain any information 

collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This action 

will not impose any requirements on 

small entities. The proposed rule would 

require the state to adopt and submit 

SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory 

requirements that apply to Serious 

areas, and would not itself directly 

regulate any small entities. We continue 

to be interested in the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities 

and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538). This action itself imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector. 

The proposed action would reclassify 

the SJV nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which would trigger existing 

statutory timeframes for the state to 

submit SIP revisions. Such a 

reclassification in and of itself does not 

impose any federal intergovernmental 

mandate. The proposed action would 

not require any tribes to submit 

implementation plans. 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). The requirement to 

submit SIP revisions to meet the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS is imposed by the CAA. 

This proposed rule does not alter the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

Eight Indian tribes are located within 

the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment 

area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The Big 

Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria 

of Mono Indians of California, the North 

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California, the Picayune Rancheria of 

Chukchansi Indians of California, the 

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi 

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain 

Rancheria of California, the Tejon 

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian 

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. 

EPA has concluded that this proposed 

rule might have tribal implications for 

the purposes of Executive Order 13175, 

but that it would not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs upon the tribes, 

nor would it preempt tribal law. We 

note that none of the tribes located in 

the SJV nonattainment area has 

requested eligibility to administer 

programs under the Clean Air Act. The 

proposed rule would affect EPA’s 

implementation of the new source 

review program because of the lower 

‘‘major source’’ threshold triggered by 

reclassification (70 tons per year for 

direct PM2.5 and precursors to PM2.5). 

The proposed rule may also affect new 

or modified stationary sources proposed 

in these areas that require Federal 

permits, approvals, or funding. Such 

projects are subject to the requirements 

of EPA’s General Conformity rule, and 

Federal permits, approvals, or funding 

for the projects may be more difficult to 

obtain because of the lower de minimis 

thresholds triggered by reclassification. 

Given these potential implications, 

EPA contacted tribal officials during the 

process of developing this proposed rule 

to provide an opportunity for the tribes 

to have meaningful and timely input 

into its development. On September 30, 

2014, we sent letters to leaders of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1491 

seven tribes with areas of Indian 

country in the SJV nonattainment area 

inviting government-to-government 

consultation on the rulemaking effort. 

We requested that the tribal leaders, or 

their designated consultation 

representatives, provide input or request 

government-to-government consultation 

by October 27, 2014. We did not receive 

a response from any of the tribes. As 

noted above, EPA inadvertently did not 

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe 

prior to this proposed action. We 

recognize that the proposed 

reclassification may be of interest to 

officials of the Tejon Indian Tribe and 

we are contacting them presently to 

offer them an opportunity for 

government-to-government 

consultation. We intend to continue 

communicating with all eight tribes 

located within the boundaries of the SJV 

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS as we move forward developing 

a final rule. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that 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 proposed action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it proposes only to reclassify 

the SJV nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which would trigger additional 

Serious area planning requirements 

under the CAA. This proposed action 

does not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This action is not subject to the 

requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) because it does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This proposed action 

would only reclassify the SJV 

nonattainment area as Serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which would trigger additional 

Serious area planning requirements 

under the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Incorporation 

by reference. 

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

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00309 Filed 1–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2014–0038; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BA13 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for 21 Species and Proposed 

Threatened Status for 2 Species in 

Guam and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period and notice of 

public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), recently 

published a proposed listing for 21 

plant and animal species from the 

Mariana Islands (U.S. Territory of Guam 

and the U.S. Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands) as 

endangered species and 2 plant species 

from the Mariana Islands as threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and 

announced a 60-day public comment 

period on the proposed actions, ending 

December 1, 2014. We now reopen the 

public comment period for an 

additional 30 days, and announce two 

public hearings and four public 

information meetings on our proposed 

rule. We are taking these actions to 

allow all interested parties additional 

time and opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rule. 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

consider comments received or 

postmarked on or before February 11, 

2015, or provided at the public hearings. 

Please note comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES) 

must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the closing date. Any 

comments that we receive after the 

closing date may not be considered in 

the final decision on the proposed rule. 

Public Hearings and Information 

Meetings: 

Public hearings Public information meetings 

Guam: Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Guam: Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS