```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49190-49193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20240]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534; FRL-9932-45-Region 9]

Withdrawal of Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Contingency 
Measures for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw a May 22, 2014 final action 
approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address 
contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 
Valley. Simultaneously, EPA is proposing to disapprove this SIP 
submission. These proposed actions are in response to a decision issued 
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Committee for a 
Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)) remanding EPA's 
approval of a related SIP submission and rejecting EPA's rationale for 
approving plan submissions that rely on California mobile source 
control measures to meet SIP requirements such as contingency measures, 
which was a necessary basis for the May 22, 2014 final rule.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0534, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
     Email: lo.doris@epa.gov.
     Mail or delivery: Doris Lo, (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials in person, please schedule an appointment during normal 
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 
(415) 972-3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences
III. Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 
([micro]m) in diameter (PM2.5), including an annual standard 
of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year 
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24-hour 
(daily) standard of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th 
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.\1\ Effective April 
5, 2005, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area in California 
as nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.\2\ The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in the 
southern half of California's central valley and includes all or part 
of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 
Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.\3\ The local air 
district with primary responsibility for developing state 
implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the NAAQS in this area is the San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or 
District).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 [micro]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144 
(October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA 
strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering 
the level to 12 [micro]g/m\3\. 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 standard 
(65 [micro]g/m\3\) and annual standard (15.0 [micro]g/m\3\) as 
codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
    \2\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 81.305.
    \3\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of 
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submittals to 
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 annual 
and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\4\ We refer to these 
submittals collectively as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On 
November 9, 2011, EPA approved all elements of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which EPA 
disapproved for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(9).\5\ On July 3, 2013, the State made a new submission to meet 
the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the SJV (2013 Contingency Measure Submittal) to correct the 
deficiencies identified in EPA's November 2011 action disapproving the 
contingency measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011) (final action on 2008 
PM2.5 Plan).
    \5\ Id. at 69924.
    \6\ 78 FR 53113, 53115-53116 (August 28, 2013) (proposed action 
on Contingency Measure SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2014, EPA fully approved the 2013 Contingency Measure 
Submittal based on the Agency's conclusion that this SIP submittal 
corrected then outstanding deficiencies in the CAA section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measures for the 1997

[[Page 49191]]

PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ Among other things, the 2013 Contingency 
Measure Submittal relied on the ongoing implementation of California's 
mobile source control program as a basis for satisfying the contingency 
measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9). Specifically, the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal relied on California mobile source 
measures to achieve 21 tons per day (tpd) of reductions in emissions of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in 2015, roughly two-thirds of the 
total amount of NOX emission reductions (31.6 tpd) necessary 
to achieve one year's worth of reasonable further progress (RFP) in the 
SJV.\8\ In its May 22, 2014 final action on the 2013 Contingency 
Measure Submittal, EPA determined that CARB's continuing implementation 
of these mobile source control measures in 2015, together with other 
fully-adopted measures implemented by the District in the same 
timeframe, would provide for an appropriate level of continued emission 
reduction progress should the SJV area fail to attain the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, which was 
April 5, 2015, thereby meeting the requirement for contingency measures 
for failure to attain.\9\ With respect to the requirement for 
contingency measures for failure to meet RFP requirements, EPA 
determined that this requirement was moot because the District had 
already met the RFP requirements relevant to the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan by the time of EPA's May 22, 2014 action.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014) (final action on Contingency 
Measure SIP).
    \8\ 78 FR 53113, 53123 (August 28, 2013) and 79 FR 29327, 29336-
29337 (May 22, 2014).
    \9\ 78 FR 53113, 53123 and 79 FR 29327, 29350.
    \10\ 79 FR 29327, 29350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several environmental and community organizations filed a petition 
for review of EPA's November 9, 2011 action on the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, arguing, among other things, that the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan had calculated the necessary emission reductions 
and forecasts in part based on state-adopted mobile source measures 
that are not themselves incorporated into the federally enforceable 
plan, in violation of the CAA.\11\ At that time, EPA's longstanding and 
consistent practice had been to allow California SIPs to rely on 
emission reduction credit for state mobile source rules waived or 
authorized by EPA under section 209 of the Act (``waiver measures'') to 
meet certain SIP requirements without requiring approval of those 
control measures into the SIP under section 110 of the Act. On May 20, 
2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the 
petition with respect to this issue, holding that EPA violated the CAA 
by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan even though the plan did 
not include the waiver measures on which the plan relied to achieve its 
emission reduction goals. Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. EPA, 
786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (CBA) (partially granting and partially 
denying petition for review). The court rejected EPA's arguments 
supporting the Agency's longstanding practice, finding that section 
110(a)(2)(A) of the Act plainly mandates that all control measures on 
which states rely to attain the NAAQS must be ``included'' in the SIP 
and subject to enforcement by EPA and citizens. The court remanded 
EPA's November 9, 2011 action for further proceedings consistent with 
the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. EPA, Case No. 11-
73924 (9th Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, environmental and community organizations also filed a 
petition for review of EPA's May 22, 2014 action on the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal, arguing, among other things, that EPA 
violated the CAA by approving that submittal even though it did not 
include the waiver measures on which it relied to achieve the necessary 
emission reductions to meet contingency measure requirements.\12\ On 
June 10, 2015, EPA filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remand of 
the May 22, 2014 final rule without vacatur based, inter alia, on the 
Agency's substantial and legitimate need to reexamine this rulemaking 
in light of the Ninth Circuit's May 20, 2015 decision in CBA.\13\ As 
explained in EPA's motion, the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal that 
EPA approved in the May 22, 2014 rulemaking relied upon waiver measures 
to achieve a significant percentage of the emission reductions 
necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for contingency 
measures, and these waiver measures are not included in the SIP.\14\ 
EPA moved the court for an order remanding the May 22, 2014 final rule 
to allow the Agency to reconsider it in light of the CBA decision.\15\ 
On June 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted EPA's motion and remanded 
the petition for review to EPA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 
14-72219 (9th Cir.).
    \13\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 
14-72219 (9th Cir.), United States Unopposed Motion for Voluntary 
Remand of the Rule at Issue Without Vacatur, Docket Entry 29-1.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 
14-72219 (9th Cir.), Order, Docket Entry 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences

    As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's prior 
interpretation of the CAA under which EPA had allowed California SIPs 
to rely on waiver measures without requiring approval of those measures 
into the SIP in accordance with section 110 of the Act. This 
interpretation formed a necessary basis for EPA's approval of the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal.\17\ In response to the court's ruling in 
CBA, we are proposing to withdraw our May 22, 2014 approval of the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal (79 FR 29327) because it was predicated 
on an interpretation of the CAA that has been rejected by the Ninth 
Circuit. For the same reason, we are proposing to disapprove the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal for failure to satisfy the requirements 
of the Act. This proposed withdrawal and disapproval, if finalized, 
would have the effect of removing the 2013 Contingency Measure 
Submittal from the applicable California SIP and deleting the 
provisions in 40 CFR 52.220(c) where EPA's approval of the SIP 
submittal is currently codified.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 79 FR 29327, 29336-37 (May 22, 2014).
    \18\ See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(438)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a SIP 
submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or 
is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 
described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a mandatory 
sanctions clock. Disapproval of a SIP element also triggers the 
requirement under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no 
later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State 
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or 
plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.
    EPA is proposing to determine that this disapproval of the 2013 
Contingency Measure Submittal does not start a mandatory sanctions 
clock or FIP clock because the specific type of contingency measure at 
issue in that submittal is no longer a required attainment plan element 
under the facts and circumstances of this situation. CARB submitted the 
2013 Contingency Measure Submittal to address the contingency measure 
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) as applied to the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, which provided for attainment of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015, the latest permissible 
attainment date for this area under

[[Page 49192]]

subpart 1 of part D, title I of the Act.\19\ Thus, CARB intended the 
specific measures to be contingency measures that would apply in the 
event of a failure to attain by April 5, 2015. However, intervening 
events have affected the applicable requirements for contingency 
measures for this area. A January 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals (NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)) held that 
EPA must implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with 
the requirements of subpart 4 of Part D, title I of the Act. In order 
to address the requirements of subpart 4, EPA promulgated a rulemaking 
to classify all existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 
including SJV, as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas and to provide 
additional time for states to make or supplement SIP submissions in 
order to meet the requirements of subpart 4.\20\ On April 7, 2015, EPA 
determined that the SJV area could not attain by the applicable 
attainment date (i.e., April 5, 2015) and therefore reclassified the 
area from ``Moderate'' to ``Serious.'' As a consequence of the SJV 
area's reclassification as a Serious area for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS, California is now required to submit a Serious area plan, 
including both a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment of 
the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by the Serious area 
attainment date, which is December 31, 2015, and contingency measures 
to be implemented if the area fails to make RFP or to attain by that 
date.\21\ Another consequence of this reclassification, however, is 
that the specific requirement for contingency measures for failure to 
attain as a Moderate area plan requirement was superseded and 
eliminated.\22\ Thus, the specific contingency measures at issue in the 
2013 Contingency Measure Submittal are no longer required and 
disapproval of those specific measures should not be a basis for 
sanctions or a FIP under these facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 80 FR 1482, 1483 at n. 10 (January 12, 2015) (proposed rule 
to reclassify SJV as Serious nonattainment for 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS).
    \20\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
    \21\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). California has requested an 
extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA 
section 188(e), and EPA is currently evaluating that request. See 
letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 
California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, transmitting ``2015 Plan for the 
PM2.5 Standard.''
    \22\ EPA does not interpret the requirement for failure-to-
attain contingency measures to apply to Moderate PM2.5 
nonattainment areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the 
statutory attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it is appropriate 
for the state to identify and adopt attainment contingency measures 
as part of the Serious area attainment plan that it will develop 
once EPA reclassifies the area. See 59 FR 41998, 42015 (August 16, 
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal, 
if finalized, would not trigger sanctions or FIP clocks because the 
contingency measure requirement that this SIP submittal addressed has 
been superseded by different planning obligations under subpart 4 of 
part D, title I of the Act. That is, because the State submitted the 
2013 Contingency Measure Submittal to address a contingency measure 
requirement for failure to attain by a statutory attainment date that 
no longer applies to the area (April 5, 2015), this SIP submittal no 
longer addresses an applicable requirement of part D, title I of the 
Act, and our disapproval of it therefore would not trigger sanctions. 
For the same reason, our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure 
Submittal would not create any deficiency in a mandatory component of 
the SIP for this area and, therefore, would not trigger the obligation 
for EPA to promulgate a FIP under section 110(c) to address this issue.

III. Request for Public Comment

    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the 
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments 
are provided in the ``Date'' and ``Addresses'' sections at the 
beginning of this preamble.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

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 et. seq., 
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter 
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new 
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State 
requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements 
but simply disapproves certain State requirements submitted for 
inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA 
to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. 
The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences 
(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will result from disapproval 
actions does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to

[[Page 49193]]

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

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    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, because it merely disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it 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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State 
requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would 
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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 lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: August 6, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2015-20240 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```