65336 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

schedule I controlled substances on 

persons who handle (manufacture, 

distribute, reverse distribute, import, 

export, engage in research, conduct 

instructional activities or chemical 

analysis with, or possess), or propose to 

handle, ethylphenidate. 

According to HHS, ethylphenidate 

has a high potential for abuse, has no 

currently accepted medical use in 

treatment in the United States, and lacks 

accepted safety for use under medical 

supervision. DEA’s research confirms 

that there is no legitimate commercial 

market for ethylphenidate in the United 

States. Therefore, DEA estimates that no 

United States entity currently handles 

ethylphenidate and does not expect any 

United States entity to handle 

ethylphenidate in the foreseeable future. 

DEA concludes that no legitimate 

United States entity would be affected 

by this rule if finalized. As such, the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 

2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., DEA has 

determined and certifies that this action 

would not result in any Federal 

mandate that may result ‘‘in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year * * *.’’ Therefore, neither a 

Small Government Agency Plan nor any 

other action is required under UMRA of 

1995. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This action does not impose a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 7, 2023, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, DEA 

proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as 

follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

956(b), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1308.11 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) 

through (12) as (f)(7) through (13); and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (f)(6) 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

*******

(6) Ethylphenidate (ethyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate) .............................................................................................................. 1727 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Scott Brinks, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20439 Filed 9–21–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0267; FRL–10958– 

01–R9] 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for 

the 24-Hour PM10 Standards; 

Sacramento County Planning Area, 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the ‘‘Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance 

Plan for Sacramento County’’ (‘‘Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 

as a revision to the state implementation 

plan (SIP) for the State of California 

(‘‘State’’). The Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan includes, among 

other elements, a base year emissions 

inventory, a maintenance 

demonstration, contingency provisions, 

and motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

use in transportation conformity 

determinations, to ensure the continued 

maintenance of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter of 10 microns or less 

(PM10). With this proposed rulemaking, 

the EPA is beginning the adequacy 

process for the 2024, 2027, and 2033 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

Additionally, as part of the technical 

basis for this approval, the EPA is taking 

comment on our August 1, 2022 

concurrence on the wildfire exceptional 

events demonstration submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

on April 26, 2021. 

DATES: Written comments must arrive 

on or before October 23, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0267 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effect comments, please visit 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65337 

1 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). The EPA established 

both primary and secondary standards for the 

annual NAAQS and the 24-hour NAAQS. Primary 

standards provide public health protection, 

including protecting the health of ‘‘sensitive’’ 

populations such as asthmatics, children, and the 

elderly. Secondary standards provide public 

welfare protection, including protection against 

decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, 

vegetation, and buildings. The primary and 

secondary standards were the set at the same level 

for the annual PM10 NAAQS (i.e., at 50 mg/m3) and 

for the 24-hour NAAQS (i.e., at 150 mg/m3). 

2 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 

3 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 

4The nonattainment area for PM10 was set as the 

same boundaries as Sacramento County, 58 FR 

67334 (December 21, 1993). 

5 67 FR 7082 (February 15, 2002). 

6An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (i.e., 150 

mg/m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up.) Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not 

be an exceedance as it would be rounded to 150 mg/ 

m3. A recorded value of 155 mg/m3 would be an 

exceedance because it would be rounded to 160 mg/ 

m3. 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 1.0. 

7 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

The comparison with the allowable expected 

exceedance rate of one per year is made in terms 

of a number rounded to the nearest tenth; e.g., an 

exceedance rate of 1.05 would be rounded to 1.1, 

which is the lowest rate for nonattainment. 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, section 2.1(b). 

8Letter dated December 7, 2010, from James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

9 78 FR 59261 (September 26, 2013). 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies 

and Modeling Section (AIR–2–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3934, 

dorantes.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

B. The Sacramento County Planning Area 

Nonattainment Designation and First 

PM10 Maintenance Plan 

II. Air Quality in the Sacramento County 

Planning Area 

A. Exceedances in the Sacramento County 

Planning Area 

B. Exceptional Events Demonstration for 

the 2018 Exceedances in the Sacramento 

County Planning Area 

C. Exceedances Occuring After the 2019 

Design Value Period 

III. The Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan 

Submittal and Procedural Requirements 

IV. Evaluation of the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

C. Monitoring Network Requirements 

D. Verification of Continued Attainment 

E. Contingency Provisions 

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The PM10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the EPA promulgates 

NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, 

such as particulate matter, and conducts 

periodic review of these standards to 

determine whether they should be 

revised or whether new standards 

should be established. In 1987, the EPA 

established two PM10 NAAQS: annual 

standards of 50 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) and 24-hour standards of 

150 mg/m3.1 Upon further review, the 

annual PM10 standards were 

subsequently revoked effective 

December 18, 2006, as the available 

evidence did not suggest an association 

between long-term exposure to coarse 

particles at ambient levels and 

detrimental health effects.2 However, 

the EPA announced that it was retaining 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 

provide continued protection against 

the effects associated with short-term 

exposure to coarse particles.3 In this 

document, ‘‘PM10 NAAQS’’ or the 

singular ‘‘PM10 standard’’ will 

henceforth refer to both the primary and 

secondary 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, as 

they are the same. 

B. The Sacramento County Planning 

Area Nonattainment Designation and 

First PM10 Maintenance Plan 

Under section 107 of the CAA, the 

EPA is required to designate all areas of 

the country as attainment, 

nonattainment, or unclassifiable for 

each of the NAAQS. Under the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, the Sacramento 

County planning area was initially 

designated as unclassifiable for the PM10

NAAQS by operation of law. The EPA 

then redesignated and classified the area 

as a ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment area on 

January 20, 1994, due to PM10 NAAQS 

violations recorded at two PM10

monitors within the Sacramento County 

planning area during 1989 and 1990.4

This action established an attainment 

deadline of December 31, 2000. 

On February 15, 2002, the EPA 

determined that the Sacramento County 

nonattainment area had attained the 

PM10 NAAQS by the attainment date.5

The determination was based on 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data from 1998 

to 2000. The 24-hour standard is 

attained when the recorded number of 

days with levels above 150 mg/m3

(averaged over a 3-year period) is less 

than or equal to one.6 The recorded 

number of exceedances averaged over a 

three-year period at any given monitor 

is known as the PM10 design value, and 

the highest design value recorded 

within the nonattainment area is used as 

the area’s PM10 design value for the 

purposes of determining attainment.7

Section 175A of the CAA dictates that 

any state that submits a request for 

redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment shall also submit a SIP 

revision that provides for the 

maintenance of the pertinent NAAQS 

for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation. This maintenance plan 

must, among other requirements, ensure 

control measures are in place such that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

standard for a 10-year period after 

redesignation, and include contingency 

provisions to ensure that violations of 

the NAAQS will be promptly remedied. 

In California, CARB is the agency 

responsible for the adoption and 

submission of California SIPs and SIP 

revisions to the EPA. Working jointly 

with CARB, local and regional air 

pollution control districts in California 

are responsible for the development of 

regional air quality plans. The 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (‘‘SMAQMD’’ or 

‘‘District’’) develops and adopts plans to 

address CAA planning requirements 

applicable to Sacramento County. 

SMAQMD adopts and submits its plans 

to CARB for state adoption and 

submission to the EPA as revisions to 

the California SIP. 

On December 7, 2010, CARB 

requested that the EPA redesignate the 

Sacramento County PM10 nonattainment 

area to attainment and concurrently 

submitted the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan and associated motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

to the EPA as a revision to the California 

SIP.8 On October 28, 2013, the EPA 

approved the Sacramento PM10

Maintenance Plan, which provided for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for the area 

through October 28, 2023.9


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65338 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

10See EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, 

for 2011–2022 PM10 Design Values for Sacramento 

County (Report accessed August 9, 2023), included 

in the docket for this rulemaking, for full details. 

11Letter dated March 31, 2021, from Mark 

Loutzenhiser, Division Manager, Program 

Coordination Division, SMAQMD, to Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: 

‘‘Exceptional Event Demonstration for November 

2018 PM10 Exceedances in Sacramento County due 

to Wildfires.’’ 

12 72 FR 13560 (March 22, 2007). 

13 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016). 

14 40 CFR 50.14(b)(4). 

II. Air Quality in the Sacramento 

County Planning Area 

A. Exceedances in the Sacramento 

County Planning Area 

A recent design value showing a 

maintenance area is continuing to attain 

the PM10 NAAQS (i.e., the recorded 

number of days with levels above 150 

mg/m3, averaged over a 3-year period, is 

less than or equal to one) is the 

foundation of a second 10-year 

maintenance plan. As described in more 

detail in Section IV.A of this document, 

a base year emissions inventory from 

the design value period that represents 

attainment conditions is used as the 

basis for projecting emissions 

inventories into the future and to 

demonstrate that future emissions will 

not lead to an exceedance of the 

standards. The District used the data 

from calendar years 2017 through 2019 

to calculate a 2019 design value to 

demonstrate the area had continued to 

attain the PM10 standard and selected 

the 2017 emissions inventory as its base 

year inventory. 

Table 1 of this document shows the 

design values for the Sacramento 

County PM10 maintenance area at the 

monitoring sites active in the county 

between 2011 through 2022, accounting 

for all recorded exceedances during that 

time. Specifically, no exceedances of the 

PM10 NAAQS were recorded in 2011– 

2017, numerous exceedances were 

recorded in 2018 across all active 

monitors, a single exceedance was 

recorded in 2019 at the Sacramento T 

Street monitoring site (AQS ID: 06–067– 

0010), several exceedances were 

recorded in 2020 across all active 

monitors, and in 2021–2022 no 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS were 

recorded. As a result of the exceedance 

days recorded in 2018, the calculated 

2019 design value for PM10 is in 

violation of the standard.10 The District 

contends that the exceedances in 2018 

were due to uncontrollable wildfire 

smoke and submitted a request to 

exclude the 2018 data from regulatory 

decisions on the basis that they are 

exceptional events.11

TABLE 1—SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2013–2022 PM10 MONITOR DESIGN VALUES INCLUDING 2018 EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS

EXCEEDANCES

Design value period 

Monitoring site 

North 

Highlands 

Del Paso 

Manor 

Sacramento 

T Street a

Sacramento 

Branch Center 

2011–2013 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2012–2014 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2013–2015 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2014–2016 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2015–2017 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2016–2018 ....................................................................................................... 4.1 4.1 2.0 2.0

2017–2019 ....................................................................................................... 4.1 4.1 2.3 2.0

2018–2020 ....................................................................................................... 6.0 6.0 3.7 4.6

2019–2021 ....................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.6

2020–2022 ....................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.3 2.6

aThe Sacramento T Street monitoring station came into active use in 2013. (North Highlands Air Quality System Site ID #:06–067–0002–1; Del 

Paso Manor (primary) AQS Site ID #: 06–067–0006–1; Sacramento T Street AQS Site ID #: 06–067–0010–4; Sacramento Branch Center AQS 

Site ID #: 06–067–0284–1). 

B. Exceptional Events Demonstration for 

the 2018 Exceedances in the 

Sacramento County Planning Area 

Congress has recognized that it may 

not be appropriate for the EPA to use 

certain monitoring data, collected by the 

ambient air quality monitoring network 

and maintained in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database, in certain 

regulatory determinations. Thus, in 

2005, Congress provided the statutory 

authority for the exclusion of data 

influenced by ‘‘exceptional events’’ 

meeting specific criteria by adding 

section 319(b) to the CAA. To 

implement this 2005 CAA amendment, 

the EPA promulgated the 2007 

Exceptional Events Rule.12 The 2007 

Exceptional Events Rule created a 

regulatory process codified at 40 CFR 

parts 50 and 51 (sections 50.1, 50.14, 

51.930). These regulatory sections, 

which superseded the EPA’s previous 

guidance on handling data influenced 

by exceptional events, contain 

definitions, procedural requirements, 

requirements for air agency 

demonstrations, criteria for EPA 

approval of the exclusion of eventaffected air quality data from the data 

set used for regulatory decisions, and 

requirements for air agencies to take 

appropriate and reasonable actions to 

protect public health from exceedances 

or violations of the NAAQS. In 2016, the 

EPA promulgated a comprehensive 

revision to the 2007 Exceptional Events 

Rule (referred to herein as the 

‘‘Exceptional Events Rule’’).13 Under the 

Exceptional Events Rule, if, for example, 

a state demonstrates to the EPA’s 

satisfaction that emissions from a 

wildfire smoke event caused specific air 

pollution concentration in excess of the 

PM10 NAAQS at a particular air quality 

monitoring location and otherwise 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

50.14, the EPA must exclude that data 

from use in determinations of 

exceedances and violations.14

For the EPA to concur with excluding 

the air quality data from regulatory 

decision, the demonstration must satisfy 

all the Exceptional Events Rule criteria. 

Specifically, under 40 CFR 

50.14(c)(3)(iv), the air agency 

demonstration to justify exclusion of 

data must include: 

1. a narrative conceptual model that 

describes the event(s) causing the 

exceedance or violation and a 

discussion of how emissions from the 

event(s) led to the exceedance or 

violation at the affected monitors(s); 

2. a demonstration that the event 

affected air quality in such a way that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65339 

15A natural event is further described in 40 CFR 

50.1(k) as ‘‘[a]n event and its resulting emissions, 

which may recur at the same location, in which 

human activity plays little or no direct causal role. 

For purposes of the definition of a natural event, 

anthropogenic sources that are reasonably 

controlled shall be considered to not play a direct 

role in causing emissions.’’ 

16Email dated August 21, 2019, from Sylvia 

Vanderspek (CARB) to Gwen Yoshimura (EPA 

Region IX) Subject: ‘‘INI Form for Submittal to 

EPA—SMAQMD PM10.’’ 

17See letter dated March 3, 2020, from Elizabeth 

Adams, Air and Radiation Division Director, EPA 

Region IX, to Sylvia Vanderspek, Air Quality 

Planning Branch Chief, CARB. 

18Letter dated March 31, 2021, from Mark 

Loutzenhiser, Division Manager, Program 

Coordination Division, SMAQMD, to Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: 

‘‘Exceptional Event Demonstration for November 

2018 PM10 Exceedances in Sacramento County due 

to Wildfires.’’ 

19Letter dated April 26, 2021, from David 

Edwards for Michael Benjamin, Air Quality 

Planning and Science Division Chief, CARB, to 

Elizabeth Adams, Air and Radiation Division 

Director, EPA Region IX, Subject: ‘‘Submittal of 

Final Documentation for 2018 Exceptional Events.’’ 

20SMAQMD Exceptional Event Demonstration 

For November 2018 PM10 Exceedances in 

Sacramento County Due to Wildfires, March 31, 

2021. 

21A ceilometer measures the attenuated 

backscatter of light due to gradients in particulate 

matter or other aerosols. 

22See Sections 3 and 4, and Appendices A, B, C, 

and D of the Demonstration for full details. 

there exists a clear causal relationship 

between the specific event and the 

monitored exceedance or violation; 

3. analyses comparing the claimed 

event-influenced concentration(s) to 

concentrations at the same monitoring 

site at other times to support 

requirement in 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(2); 

4. a demonstration that the event was 

both not reasonably controllable and not 

reasonably preventable, and; 

5. a demonstration that the event was 

a human activity that is unlikely to 

recur at a particular location or was a 

natural event.15

In addition, the air agency must meet 

several procedural requirements, 

including: 

1. submission of an Initial 

Notification of Potential Exceptional 

Event and flagging of the affected data 

in the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

as described in 40 CFR 50.14(c)(2)(i); 

2. completion and documentation of 

the public comment process described 

in 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(v); and 

3. implementation of any relevant 

mitigation requirements as described in 

40 CFR 51.930. 

On August 21, 2019,16 CARB 

submitted an Initial Notification of 

Potential Exceptional Events prepared 

by SMAQMD for numerous exceedances 

of the PM10 NAAQS that occurred at the 

Sacramento T Street, North Highland, 

Del Paso Manor, and Sacramento 

Branch Center PM10 monitoring sites 

within the maintenance area on 

November 10–12 and November 14–16, 

2018. 

The EPA recommended that CARB 

and SMAQMD determine the relevant 

exceedances and associated monitoring 

sites that may have regulatory 

significance with respect to the PM10

NAAQS, and submit an exceptional 

event demonstration to the EPA no later 

than March of 2021.17 On March 31, 

2021, SMAQMD submitted the 

‘‘Exceptional Event Demonstration for 

November 2018 Exceedances in 

Sacramento County due to Wildfires’’ to 

CARB for transmittal to the EPA.18

Then, on April 26, 2021,19 CARB 

submitted the exceptional event 

demonstration prepared by SMAQMD 

for 13 exceedances of the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS during November 10–12 

and November 14–16, 2018.20 Table 2 of 

this document summarizes the 

exceedances that SMAQMD included in 

the demonstration. 

TABLE 2—SACRAMENTO COUNTY PM10 NAAQS EXCEEDANCE SUMMARY FOR 2018 

Exceedance date Monitoring site AQS ID a PM10

(μg/m3) 

November 10, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 189 

November 10, 2018 .................................................... North Highlands .......................................................... 06–067–0002–1 222 

November 10, 2018 .................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... 06–067–0006–1 212 

November 10, 2018 .................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... 06–067–0006–2 202 

November 10, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento—Branch Center ..................................... 06–067–0284–1 200 

November 11, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 176 

November 12, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 183 

November 14, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 181 

November 15, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 292 

November 16, 2018 .................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 252 

November 16, 2018 .................................................... North Highlands .......................................................... 06–067–0002–1 163 

November 16, 2018 .................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... 06–067–0006–1 166 

November 16, 2018 .................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... b 06–067–0006–2 163 

aThe last number in the AQS ID is the Parameter Occurrence Code (POC) and distinguishes between different monitors at the same site. bThe Del Paso Manor (POC 2) monitor is a collocated monitor used for quality assurance purposes. Data from this monitor are not used for 

comparison to the NAAQS. However, for completeness, CARB, SMAQMD, and the EPA have included this monitor in the demonstration and 

concurrence process. 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table 2–5. 

The demonstration submitted by 

CARB and SMAQMD provides a 

narrative conceptual model to describe 

how emissions from the Camp Fire, in 

Butte County, California, caused the 

PM10 exceedances at the listed 

monitoring sites on the listed dates. The 

narrative conceptual model includes a 

description of the Camp Fire and its 

progression, the general meteorological 

conditions in the affected area, and 

information regarding how PM10

concentrations measured during this 

period compared to normal conditions 

across the Sacramento Valley. To 

support a clear causal relationship 

between the wildfire event and the 

monitored exceedances, the 

demonstration includes several 

analyses, specifically including the 

following: comparison with historical 

PM10 concentrations; Hybrid SingleParticle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory 

(HYSPLIT) analysis; satellite imagery of 

smoke; ceilometer data; 21 regional 

patterns of PM10 concentrations and PM 

air quality index (AQI) values; fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 

concentrations and comparison with 

historical data; concurrent increases in 

carbon monoxide, black carbon, and 

organic carbon concentrations; media 

reports of wildfire smoke affecting the 

monitoring area; and District-issued air 

quality advisories.22 The documentation 

also demonstrates that the wildfire 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65340 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

23 Id. at pp. 3–1 to 3–3 and Section 5: p. 5–1. 

24 Id. at Section 6: p. 6–1. 

25SMAQMD Exceptional Event PM10 Initial 

Notification Summary Information 2016–2018, 

submitted August 21, 2019. 

26 Details included in ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for EPA Concurrence on PM10

Exceedances Measured in the Sacramento County 

Maintenance Area on November 10–12 and 

November 14–16, 2018 as Exceptional Events,’’ 

found within the docket for this rulemaking, and 

letter dated July 27, 2022, from Elizabeth Adams, 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch and Air Quality Planning and 

Science Division, CARB, Subject: ‘‘EPA 

Concurrence with EE exclusion of PM10

exceedances on November 10–12 and 14–16, 2018.’’ 

27 ‘‘Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for 

Sacramento County,’’ Appendix A. 

28EPA AQS Report of Flagged PM10 Values due 

to Wildfire Events in Sacramento County, Report 

Prepared February 13, 2023. 

29See Section IV.C of the rulemaking for 

additional details on the present status of the 

Sacramento County PM10 monitoring network. 

30 During the late summer and early fall of 2020, 

the Slater/Devils Fire, Red Salmon Complex Fire, 

August Complex Fire, North Complex Fire 

(composed of the Baer and Claremont fires), Fork 

Fire, and the Creek Fire were all active at the time 

of the exceedances. 

event was not reasonably controllable 

and not reasonably preventable.23

Furthermore, the Camp Fire event meets 

the definition of a natural wildfire 

event, defined in 40 CFR 50.1(n) as ‘‘a 

wildfire that predominantly occurs on 

wildland.’’ 24

In addition to the technical 

demonstration requirements, there are 

timing and procedural requirements an 

air agency must follow to request data 

exclusion. The demonstration submitted 

by CARB includes evidence of the 

following: SMAQMD provided prompt 

public notification of the events, CARB 

submitted an Initial Notification of 

Potential Exceptional Event in the EPA’s 

AQS system 25 and met the deadline 

requirements for these submissions, and 

the District allowed for a documented 

public comment period in which 

feedback from the public was solicited, 

collected, submitted to the EPA, and 

considered along with the submission of 

the demonstration. 

The EPA reviewed and concurred on 

the documentation provided by CARB 

and SMAQMD to support claims that 

the Camp Fire caused exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS at the Sacramento T 

Street, North Highlands, Del Paso 

Manor, and Sacramento Branch Center 

monitoring sites on November 10–12 

and November 14–16, 2018.26 The 

demonstration prepared by SMAQMD 

and submitted by CARB meets all 

criteria required by 40 CFR 50.14 

(c)(3)(iv). Furthermore, the submittal 

satisfied all schedule and procedural 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 

50.14(c) and 40 CFR 51.930. Thus, the 

EPA is relying on calculated values that 

exclude the event-influenced data for 

the purpose of demonstrating continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. With 

the exclusion of the wildfire-related 

exceedances in 2018, the 2019 design 

value is no longer in violation of the 

PM10 NAAQS. 

EPA concurrence is a preliminary step 

in the regulatory process for actions that 

may rely on these data and does not 

constitute final agency action. 

Regulatory actions that rely on the 

exclusion of exceptional event data 

require the EPA to provide an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

technical basis of the proposed action, 

including the claimed exceptional 

events and all supporting data prior to 

the EPA taking final agency action. This 

proposed action provides the public 

with an opportunity to comment on the 

claimed exceptional events for the 2018 

exceedances in Sacramento County and 

all supporting documents submitted by 

CARB, and the EPA’s concurrence with 

the State’s request with regards to our 

proposed action to approve the Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan. 

C. Exceedances Occuring After the 2019 

Design Value Period 

In order to ensure that the area has 

continued to attain the standard after 

2017–2019 design value period on 

which the Plan is based, the District 

calculated the 2020 design value (based 

on 2018–2020 data), and we 

independently calculated the 2021 and 

2022 design values (based on 2019– 

2021, and 2020–2022 data, 

respectively). In all cases the design 

values are above the standard.27 The 

2020 exceedances associated with these 

violations were initially flagged in AQS 

by SMAQMD as wildfire related and the 

District included information with the 

Plan to support these claims.28

Appendix A in the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan (‘‘Analysis of PM10

Exceedance Days in 2020’’) provides a 

conceptual narrative demonstrating how 

wildfire smoke also contributed to the 

PM10 exceedances in 2020. Between 

September 8, 2020, and September 13, 

2020, there was a total of seven recorded 

exceedances among all monitoring sites 

located within the county at the time,29

accounting for all exceedances recorded 

in 2020. Table 3 of this document 

summarizes the exceedances recorded 

during this period. 

TABLE 3—SACRAMENTO COUNTY PM10 NAAQS EXCEEDANCE SUMMARY FOR 2020 

Exceedance date Monitoring station AQS ID a PM10

(μg/m3) 

September 8, 2020 ..................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 298 

September 11, 2020 ................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 231 

September 12, 2020 ................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 186 

September 12, 2020 ................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... 06–067–0006–1 186 

September 12, 2020 ................................................... Del Paso Manor ......................................................... b 06–067–0006–2 188 

September 12, 2020 ................................................... North Highlands .......................................................... 06–067–0002–1 187 

September 12, 2020 ................................................... Sacramento—Branch Center ..................................... 06–067–0284–1 201 

September 13, 2020 ................................................... Sacramento T Street .................................................. 06–067–0010–4 169 

aThe last number in the AQS ID is the Parameter Occurrence Code (POC) and distinguishes between different monitors at the same site. bThe Del Paso Manor (POC 2) monitor is a collocated monitor for quality assurance purposes, and the data from this monitor is not used for 

comparison to the NAAQS. However, for completeness, CARB, SMAQMD, and the EPA included this monitor in the demonstration and concurrence process. 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table A–1. 

Similar to the exceptional event 

demonstration for the 2018 

exceedances, Appendix A documents 

several wildfires in the vicinity of 

Sacramento County that were active 

during 2020 and attributes emissions 

from these wildfires, concurrent with 

wind gust events, as having caused the 

PM10 exceedances listed in Table 3.30


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65341 

31Letter dated October 20, 2021, from Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX 

(submitted electronically October 21, 2021). 

The appendix includes an overview of 

the wildfires active at the time of the 

exceedances, including the start and 

containment dates, the geographic 

proximity and range of each wildfire, 

and fire containment levels during the 

date range of the exceedances. To 

support a clear causal relationship 

between these wildfire events, wind 

gusts, and the monitored exceedances, 

Appendix A includes several analyses 

including the following: HYSPLIT 

analysis; satellite imagery of smoke; 

regional patterns of PM10 concentrations 

and PM AQI; PM2.5 concentrations and 

comparison with historical data; 

concurrent increases in carbon 

monoxide, black carbon, and organic 

carbon concentrations; as well as media 

reports of wildfire smoke affecting the 

monitoring data. In addition, the District 

notes that the wildfires listed in Table 

A–2 of Appendix A were either a result 

of lightning strikes or were still under 

investigation, and the District contends 

these wildfire events were not 

reasonably controllable and not 

reasonably preventable. Therefore, in 

lieu of an exceptional event 

demonstration, the EPA proposes to find 

that this information provided in 

Appendix A of the Plan indicates that 

the 2020 exceedances were caused by 

uncontrollable wildfire smoke and wind 

gusts. 

Because SMAQMD and CARB did not 

submit an exceptional event 

demonstration for the 2020 exceedances 

from wildfires, we have factored these 

exceedances into design value 

calculations, and the post-2019 design 

values (2020, 2021, and 2022) remain in 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS, as 

summarized in Table 4 of this 

document. However, after reviewing the 

evidence provided by the District 

demonstrating that the exceedances in 

2020 were caused by a combination of 

uncontrollable wildfire smoke and wind 

gust events, and therefore separate from 

trends in the ambient air quality for 

PM10, we propose to find that these 

exceedances do not call into question 

the EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan as 

providing for maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS. No exceedances were recorded 

in 2021, nor 2022, lending additional 

support to the claim that the 2020 

exceedances were caused by 

uncontrollable wildfire smoke and wind 

gust events. We find that these data are 

consistent with the EPA’s proposed 

approval of the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan as providing for 

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS. Prior 

to finalizing this action, we will 

examine all quality-assured and 

certified PM10 monitoring data available 

to ensure this trend persists or that the 

District has implemented its 

contingency plan to address any 

exceedances. 

TABLE 4—SACRAMENTO COUNTY PM10 MONITOR DESIGN VALUES WITH 2018 EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS EXCEEDANCES

REMOVED

Design value period 

Monitoring site 

North 

Highlands 

Del Paso 

Manor 

Sacramento 

T Street a

Sacramento 

Branch Center 

2011–2013 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2012–2014 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2013–2015 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 ........................ 0.0 

2014–2016 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2015–2017 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2016–2018 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2017–2019 ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

2018–2020 ....................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.6

2019–2021 ....................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.6

2020–2022 ....................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.3 2.6

aThe Sacramento T Street monitoring station came into active use in 2013. (North Highlands AQS Site ID #:06–067–0002–1; Del Paso Manor 

(primary) AQS Site ID #: 06–067–0006–1; Sacramento T Street AQS Site ID #: 06–067–0010–4; Sacramento Branch Center AQS Site ID #: 06– 

067–0284–1). 

Source: TSD for EPA Concurrence on PM10 Exceedances Measured in Sacramento County on Nov 10–12 and Nov 14–16 as EE, found within 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

III. The Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan Submittal and Procedural 

Requirements 

CAA section 175A(b) requires states 

to submit a SIP revision to maintain the 

NAAQS for an additional ten years after 

the expiration of the 10-year period 

covered by the initial maintenance plan. 

The submittal is due eight years after 

the original redesignation request and 

maintenance plan was approved. The 

deadline to submit the SIP revision for 

the Sacramento County PM10 NAAQS 

maintenance area was October 28, 2021. 

On October 21, 2021, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance 

Plan for Sacramento County’’ (‘‘Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 

to meet the requirement for a 

subsequent maintenance plan under 

CAA section 175A(b).31 The Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan is intended to 

provide for continued maintenance of 

the PM10 NAAQS for the 10-year period 

following the end of the first 10-year 

period, i.e., from 2024 through 2033. 

In addition, CAA sections 110(a)(1), 

(2), and 110(l) require states to provide 

reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public hearing prior to adoption and 

submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To 

meet these procedural requirements, 

every SIP submission should include 

evidence that the state provided 

adequate public notice and opportunity 

for a public hearing consistent with the 

EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 

CFR 51.102. CARB’s October 21, 2021 

SIP submittal package includes 

documentation of the public processes 

used by the District and CARB to adopt 

the Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan. 

Prior to adoption of the plan, a 

reasonable notice of a public hearing 

was provided to the public, and a public 

hearing was conducted. Specifically, 

notices of a public hearing and the 

opening of a comment period for the 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for 

Sacramento County were published 

within the ‘‘News and Notices’’ section 

of the District’s website on July 23, 

2021, in advance of the August 26, 2021 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65342 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

32SMAQMD affidavit of publication of ‘‘Public 

Hearing for Approval of the Second 10-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Sacramento County’’ on the 

District’s website on July 23, 2021. 

33See SMAQMD Transmittal Letter from Mark 

Loutzenhiser, Division Manager, Program 

Coordination Division, SMAQMD, to Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated September 2, 

2021. 

34SMAQMD Board of Directors Public Hearing 

and Resolution No. 2021–009 Adopting the 

‘‘Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for 

Sacramento County,’’ dated August 26, 2021. 

35Letter dated September 2, 2021, from Mark 

Loutzenhiser, Division Manager, Program 

Coordination Division, SMAQMD, to Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. 

36CARB Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 

Sacramento County PM10 Maintenance Plan State 

Implementation Plan Submittal, dated August 13, 

2021. 

37CARB Board Resolution 21–20: Sacramento 

County PM10 Maintenance Plan State 

Implementation Plan Submittal, dated September 

23, 2021. 

38Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA, to Regional Office Air Division 

Directors, Subject: ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.’’ 

39CAA section 172(c)(3). 

40 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. 

41EPA–454/R–94–033, September 1994. 

42SMAQMD PM10 Implementation/Maintenance 

Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento 

County, p. 4–4. Source contributions used in the 

CMB study were based on a technical paper on 

wintertime PM2.5 and PM10 source apportionment 

for Sacramento (Motallebi, Nehzat. ‘‘Wintertime 

PM2.5 and PM10 Source Apportionment at 

Sacramento California.’’ Air and Waste 

Management Association, 1999). The CMB study 

calculated source contributions for ambient air 

quality samples (>40 mg/m3) collected from 

November to January for 1991–1996. 

43Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table 5–1. 

44Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan For 

Sacramento County, Section 2.8. 

public hearing.32 No comments were 

received during the District’s comment 

period.33 Following the adoption of a 

resolution to approve the Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan,34 the District 

requested that CARB review and adopt 

the Plan.35 On August 13, 2021, CARB 

published on its website a notice of a 

public hearing to be held on September 

23, 2021, to consider adoption of the 

District’s Plan.36 No comments were 

received during CARB’s public 

comment period. CARB adopted the 

Plan,37 and subsequently submitted it to 

the EPA as a revision to the California 

SIP on October 21, 2021. Based on the 

documentation provided in the Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan submittal, we 

propose to find that the SIP revision 

satisfies the public notice procedural 

requirements of the Act. 

Section 175A of the CAA provides the 

general framework for a maintenance 

plan. The initial 10-year maintenance 

plan must provide for maintenance of 

the NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, including any control 

measures necessary to ensure such 

maintenance. In addition, maintenance 

plans are to contain contingency 

provisions necessary to ensure the 

prompt correction of a violation of the 

NAAQS that may occur after 

redesignation. The contingency 

measures must include, at a minimum, 

a requirement that the state will 

implement all control measures 

contained in the nonattainment SIP 

prior to redesignation. Beyond these 

provisions, section 175A of the CAA 

does not define the content of a second 

10-year maintenance plan. 

The primary guidance on 

maintenance plans and redesignation 

requests is the September 4, 1992 

memorandum from John Calcagni, titled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

(‘‘Calcagni Memo’’).38 The Calcagni 

Memo outlines the key elements of a 

maintenance plan, which include the 

following: attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network requirements, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and contingency plan elements. We are 

evaluating the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan based on the 

satisfactory fulfillment of these and all 

relevant procedural requirements of the 

CAA. 

IV. Evaluation of the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan 

A. Emissions Inventory 

A maintenance plan for the PM10

NAAQS should include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

emissions inventory of all sources of 

relevant pollutants in the area, to 

identify a level of emissions sufficient to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS. The inventory 

should include emissions from 

stationary point sources, area sources, 

and mobile sources and must be based 

on actual emissions during the 

appropriate season, if applicable.39 This 

emissions inventory should be 

consistent with the EPA’s most recent 

guidance available at the time and 

should represent emissions during the 

time period associated with the 

monitoring data showing attainment, in 

this case 2017–2019. The specific PM10

emissions inventory requirements are 

set forth in the Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements rule.40 The EPA has 

provided additional guidance for 

developing PM10 emissions inventories 

in ‘‘PM10 Emissions Inventory 

Requirements,’’ 41 and ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Requirements’’ (May 2017). 

The SMAQMD Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan includes inventories 

for total primary PM10 and nitrogen 

oxide pollutants (NOX) in the County for 

the years 2017, 2024, 2027, and 2033. 

NOX emissions are discussed in this 

plan due to the significant contribution 

of NOX as a precursor pollutant, 

especially toward wintertime ambient 

PM10 concentrations, as demonstrated in 

the first maintenance plan by a chemical 

mass balance (CMB) study of PM10

pollution in the County.42 Additionally, 

detailed emissions inventory data for 

sulfur oxides (SOX) are not included, 

but SOX emissions remain stable 

throughout the second maintenance 

period at about 1 ton per day (tpd).43

The Plan also states that volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) are not identified in 

the CMB study analysis performed for 

the First Maintenance Plan as 

contributing to the PM10 concentrations 

and therefore are not included in the 

emissions inventory. The District 

selected the inventory years to include 

the base year emissions inventory 

(2017), an inventory for the first year of 

the second maintenance period (2024), 

an interim year inventory (2027), and an 

inventory for the end of the second 

maintenance period (2033). The base 

year is the first year of the Plan’s design 

value. Projected emissions inventories 

for future years must account for, among 

other factors, the ongoing effects of 

economic growth and adopted 

emissions control requirements, and the 

inventories are expected to be the best 

available representation of future 

emissions. The Plan includes emissions 

estimates from all the relevant 

stationary point, area, and mobile 

source categories, and further divides 

these main categories into more 

descriptive subcategories. As these 

emissions forecasts consider expected 

emissions reductions to the base year 

inventory resulting from adopted 

control measures, they similarly 

consider potential emissions increases, 

such as those associated with emissions 

reduction credits (ERCs). ERCs are 

allowances earned through voluntary 

pollutant emissions reductions such as 

equipment shutdowns or voluntarily 

installed controls. Emissions within the 

Plan are listed for an average winter day 

when concentrations were shown to be 

seasonally elevated. The SMAQMD 

analysis demonstrates a seasonal 

occurrence of higher ambient PM10

concentrations in the fall and winter 

months.44 The District finds that this 

trend is a result of increased residential 

wood combustion, in conjunction with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65343 

45EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA 

approved EMFAC2017 for SIP development and 

transportation conformity purposes in California on 

August 15, 2019. 84 FR 41717. EMFAC2017 was the 

most recently approved version of the EMFAC 

model that was available at the time of preparation 

of the Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan. 

winter weather conditions conducive to 

PM10 pollutant build up (e.g., greater 

atmospheric stability, low wind 

dispersion, and colder temperatures). 

The emissions inventories used in the 

Plan are from CARB’s California 

Emissions Projection Analysis Model 

(CEPAM): CEPAM 2019: External 

Adjustment Reporting Tool—Version 

1.02. Because the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan depends on both 

PM10 and NOX emissions to demonstrate 

continued compliance (discussed in 

further detail in Sections III.C and D of 

this document), the EPA reviewed both 

PM10 and NOX emissions inventories. 

Direct PM10 and NOX emissions 

estimates for stationary point sources 

reflect actual emissions reported to the 

District by owners or operators of 

industrial point sources in the 

Sacramento County planning area. This 

category is primarily composed of fuel 

combustion, waste disposal, petroleum 

production and marketing, and other 

industrial processes. Areawide sources, 

such as consumer products and 

agricultural burning, occur over a wide 

geographic area. Emissions for these 

categories are calculated from fuel 

usage, product sales, population, 

employment data, and other parameters 

for the pertinent range of activities 

across Sacramento County. 

Emissions from on-road mobile 

sources, which include passenger 

vehicles, buses, and trucks, were 

estimated using outputs from CARB’s 

EMFAC2017 model.45 Emissions 

inventories for aircraft, trains, boats, and 

off-road vehicles and equipment used 

for construction, farming, commercial, 

industrial, and recreational activities 

were included in the ‘‘Other Mobile’’ 

category. 

The direct PM10 emissions for the 

base year emissions inventory are 

presented within Table 5 of this 

document. 

TABLE 5—SACRAMENTO COUNTY DIRECT PM10 2017 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS

[Tons per average winter day] 

Source category Subcategory 2017 2024 2027 2033 

Stationary Point Sources .................. Fuel Combustion .............................. 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.24 

Waste Disposal ................................ 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Industrial Processes ......................... 1.14 1.18 1.31 1.35 

Areawide ........................................... Residential Fuel Combustion ........... 9.15 8.97 8.89 8.83 

Farming Operations ......................... 1.25 1.16 1.12 1.06 

Construction and Demolition ............ 9.42 9.57 10.60 11.29 

Paved Road Dust ............................. 7.69 8.25 8.52 9.15 

Unpaved Road Dust ......................... 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.59 

Managed Burning and Disposal ....... 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 

Cooking ............................................ 0.88 0.94 0.96 1.00 

Fires ................................................. 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 

Fugitive Windblown Dust ................. 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 

Asphalt Paving/Roofing .................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

On-Road Motor Vehicles .................. ........................................................... 2.24 2.08 2.15 2.22 

Other Mobile ..................................... Aircraft .............................................. 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 

Trains ............................................... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Equipment (Off-Road/Farm) ............. 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.15 

Recreational Boat ............................. 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.07 

Commercial Harbor Craft ................. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Off-road Recreational Vehicles ........ <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Total ........................................... All Stationary, Areawide, and Mobile 

Sources.

33.58 33.78 35.15 36.43 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table 3–1. 

The direct NOX emissions for the base 

year emissions inventory are presented 

within Table 6 of this document. 

TABLE 6—SACRAMENTO COUNTY NOX 2017 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS

[Tons per average winter day] 

Source category Subcategory 2017 2024 2027 2033 

Stationary Point Sources .................. Fuel Combustion .............................. 1.93 1.78 1.80 1.80 

Waste Disposal ................................ 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 

Industrial Processes ......................... 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 

Petroleum Processing and Marketing.<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Areawide ........................................... Residential Fuel Combustion ........... 3.83 3.75 3.76 3.81 

Managed Burning and Disposal ....... 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 

Fires ................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

On-Road Motor Vehicles .................. ........................................................... 21.45 10.66 9.33 7.46 

Other Mobile ..................................... Aircraft .............................................. 1.75 1.98 2.08 2.30 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65344 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

46Calcagni Memo, p. 9–11. 

47Motallebi, Nahzat. ‘‘Wintertime PM2.5 and PM10

Source Apportionment at Sacramento California.’’ 

Air and Waste Management Association [1999]. 

CMB receptor monitor results from the 1991–1996 

wintertime ambient 24-hour PM10 samples from the 

Sacramento T Street monitor were used to 

determine a CMB for the 1995 ambient PM10. The 

CMB modeling used the chemical components of 

ambient PM10 concentrations, such as fugitive dust, 

carbonaceous materials from burning, nitrate, and 

sulfate, and associated them with broad emissions 

source categories having those chemical signatures. 

This is a source apportionment, giving a percent 

ambient contribution for each source category. 

TABLE 6—SACRAMENTO COUNTY NOX 2017 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS—Continued 

[Tons per average winter day] 

Source category Subcategory 2017 2024 2027 2033 

Trains ............................................... 0.85 0.99 1.02 1.05 

Equipment (Off-Road/Farm) ............. 5.00 3.42 2.97 2.69 

Recreational Boat ............................. 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.34 

Commercial Harbor Craft ................. 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.19 

Off-road Recreational Vehicles ........ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Total ........................................... All Stationary, Areawide, and Mobile 

Sources.

35.84 23.57 21,96 20.08 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table 3–2. 

Based on the estimates for the year 

2017 in Table 5, areawide sources 

account for a majority (approximately 

88 percent) of the total PM10 emissions 

in the Sacramento County planning 

area. Residential fuel combustion, 

construction and demolition, and paved 

road dust account for the majority of the 

areawide emissions (approximately 89 

percent). The future year emissions 

estimates in the Plan predict an increase 

in direct PM10 emissions within the 

Sacramento County planning area over 

the second ten-year planning period. 

The main source of the overall predicted 

increase of PM10 emissions is increased 

emissions of areawide sources, with 

increases from stationary source 

emissions also acting as a minor 

contributor to the overall trend (0.20 

tpd). By 2033, total direct PM10

emissions are estimated to be 

approximately 2.85 tpd (8.5 percent) 

higher than in the 2017 base year. These 

projected increases in PM10 emissions 

are associated with increases in 

industrial activity and vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) from expected 

population growth in the county. 

For precursor NOX emissions 

estimates, the Plan predicts an overall 

decrease of 15.8 tpd (44 percent) 

between the base year of 2017 and 2033. 

Reductions to the On-Road Motor 

Vehicle subcategory, the most 

significant contributor to total NOX

emissions, is the primary cause of this 

trend. Implementation of federal, state, 

and local regulations, including fleet 

turnover, result in a 14.0 tpd reduction 

in associated NOX emissions. 

Based on our review of the Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan, we find that the 

emissions inventories in the Plan are 

comprehensive in that they include 

estimates of PM10 and its precursors 

from all the relevant source categories, 

which the Plan divides among 

stationary, areawide, on-road motor 

vehicles, and other mobile sources. The 

EPA considers the selection of the 2017 

base year inventory to be appropriate 

given that it was the most recent 

emissions inventory associated with the 

reporting schedule required under the 

Air Emissions Reporting Requirements 

rule at the time of Plan drafting and 

because it represents attainment 

conditions. Moreover, preparation of a 

seasonal average daily inventory, as 

opposed to a yearly or episodic 

inventory, is also appropriate given that 

elevated PM10 concentrations in 

Sacramento County exhibit a clear 

seasonal pattern, with ambient 

concentrations peaking in the fall and 

winter months. Additionally, we 

consider the continued use of the CMB 

analysis from the first maintenance plan 

as a technical basis for the emissions 

inventory to be appropriate as we have 

found no evidence that it is invalid or 

inaccurate. Based on our review of the 

documentation provided with the Plan, 

we are proposing to find that the 2017 

emissions inventory for PM10 and NOX

is based on reasonable assumptions and 

methodologies, and that the inventory is 

comprehensive, current, accurate, and 

consistent with applicable CAA 

provisions and the Calcagni Memo. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires 

that the maintenance plan provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 

least 10 years after the redesignation. A 

state may generally demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by conducting modeling 

that shows that the future mix of 

sources and emissions rates will not 

cause a violation of the NAAQS.46

The District demonstrates continued 

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in its 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan by 

using a proportional rollback analysis to 

show that the future PM10 source 

concentrations will not cause a violation 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The 

District’s proportional rollback model 

relies on CMB modeling performed in 

1995.47 In proportional rollback, each 

source category’s associated proportion 

of the ambient PM10 contribution scales 

with the emissions of the category, i.e., 

the source ambient contribution is 

‘‘rolled back’’ according to source 

emissions reductions. Thus, the Plan 

aims to demonstrate continued 

maintenance of the standard by showing 

that the sum of the individual source 

category contributions for future years 

will not exceed the PM10 NAAQS as 

those source category emissions change. 

To determine the source category 

concentration contributions for future 

years, the District conducted 

proportional rollback in two steps. First 

the State adjusted the 1995 source 

apportionment (percent contributions) 

to yield an updated source 

apportionment for the 2017 base year; 

then the 2017 source concentrations 

were projected to future years, including 

2033. The ratio of the 2017 base year 

and the 1995 emissions for each 

category yields a scaling factor (‘‘2017 

Emissions Projection Factor’’), to be 

applied to the 1995 percentage. This 

provides a growth-adjusted source 

apportionment for 2017 PM10. This 

scaling factor accounts for the various 

changes in the PM10 source categories 

that have occurred over the 1995–2017 

period. For this purpose, the source 

categories were broad and included 

several individual categories with 

chemically similar emissions; for 

example, ‘‘wood burning’’ is the sum of 

Residential Fuel Combustion, Fires, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65345 

48 In its analysis, the District applied a scaling 

factor of 0.7 to reflect the change in ambient 

ammonium nitrate due to the change in NOX

emissions. i.e., ammonium nitrate concentration 

changed by 0.7 percent for every 1 percent change 

in NOX emissions. This ratio was based on San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

photochemical modeling results. The District cites 

SJVAPCD, ‘‘2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation,’’ Appendix F. Modeling 

Analysis, p.61. 

49The District performed additional proportional 

rollback analysis using the second highest ambient 

PM10 value recorded in 2017 (87 mg/m3), which 

yielded predicted peak concentrations for 2024, 

2027, 2033 that were substantially lower than those 

yielded using the highest ambient PM10

concentration for 2017. However, as the future peak 

values yielded from the peak 2017 concentration 

already demonstrated continued maintenance, the 

District did not use this additional rollback analysis 

to demonstrate continued maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS. 

50Additional discussion of evidence in support of 

the impact of natural events on the peak 2017 

ambient PM10 concentration is found within 

Section 2.3.1 of the Plan. 

51For PM10, a ‘‘complete’’ set of data include a 

minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter. See 40 CFR, part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3(a). 

52 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix J; 40 

CFR part 53; and 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, 

C, D, and E. 

Managed Burning and Disposal in the 

California Emissions Projection 

Analysis Model (CEPAM) 2019 state 

emissions inventory system. The Plan 

lists ammonium nitrate, ammonium 

sulfate, motor vehicles, wood smoke, 

fugitive dust PM10, and all leftover PM10

from unidentified sources as PM10

‘‘source categories,’’ identified in the 

CMB. The growth-adjusted source 

apportionment percentages for 2017 

were then applied to the peak PM10

ambient measurement in 2017 to yield 

the individual source category 

concentration contributions for 2017. In 

a similar manner, projection factors for 

future years were calculated from the 

ratio of future emissions estimates and 

2017 base year emissions. Those 

projection ratios were then applied to 

the 2017 peak measurement source 

category concentrations to yield the 

peak source category concentrations for 

future years, 2024, 2027, and 2033. 

TABLE 7—PREDICTED FUTURE MAINTENANCE YEAR CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON 2017 PEAK AMBIENT PM10

CONCENTRATION IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY

PM10 CMB source category 

2017 Peak 

conc. 

(μg/m3) 

2024 Peak 

conc. 

(μg/m3) 

2027 Peak 

conc. 

(μg/m3) 

2033 Peak 

conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Ammonium Nitrate ........................................................................................... 27.1 21.7 20.6 19.6 

Ammonium Sulfate .......................................................................................... 3.3 4.3 4.5 4.5 

Motor Vehicles ................................................................................................. 32.3 29.0 29.4 29.7 

Wood Smoke ................................................................................................... 27.9 27.4 27.2 27.0 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................................... 25.4 26.1 27.8 29.4 

Unidentified Other ............................................................................................ 27.4 27.8 28.9 30.0 

Total PM10—Background ......................................................................... 144.3 136.4 138.4 140.3 

Background ...................................................................................................... 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7

Total PM10 (using peak concentration) .................................................... 149 142 144 146 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, p. 5–5, Table 5–4. 

Table 7 of this document presents a 

summary of the predicted peak ambient 

PM10 concentrations for the future 

maintenance years for the Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan. The 

proportional rollback model predicts a 

decrease of secondary ammonium 

nitrate PM10 due to the decrease in NOX

emissions.48 This decrease offset the 

increases in other PM10 source 

categories such as ammonium sulfate 

and fugitive dust for the duration of the 

second maintenance period. The 

resulting projections for the future 24- 

hour PM10 concentrations were 

calculated to be 142 mg/m3 for 2024, 144 

mg/m3 for 2027, and 146 mg/m3 for 2033, 

all of which demonstrate continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS of 150 

mg/m3. As discussed in Section 2.3.1 of 

the Plan, the peak concentration in 2017 

was suspected to be influenced by 

natural events and may not represent 

ambient conditions in Sacramento.49

The District states that this is supported 

by CARB flagging the data with an 

informational flag, which indicated the 

data may have been influenced by 

wildfire.50

Based on our review, we propose to 

find that the proportional rollback 

analysis performed to demonstrate 

continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS for the years 2017 through 2033 

is based on reasonable methods, growth 

factors, and assumptions, and is based 

on the most current and accurate 

information available to CARB and 

SMAQMD at the time of plan drafting 

and inventory development. Given that 

the projections of combined PM10

sources show continued attainment 

through 2033, we are proposing to find 

that the Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan provides an adequate basis to 

demonstrate maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS within the Sacramento County 

planning area. Lastly, we propose to 

find that by providing projected peak 

concentrations through 2033, the Plan 

demonstrates maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for more than 10 years after the 

expiration of the first 10-year 

maintenance plan (i.e., 2023), in 

accordance with section 175A(b) of the 

CAA. 

C. Monitoring Network Requirements 

Following redesignation, the EPA 

determines whether an area’s air quality 

is maintaining compliance with the 

PM10 NAAQS based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified data 

gathered at established state and local 

air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the 

nonattainment area and entered in the 

EPA AQS database.51 SLAMS monitors 

produce data to be compared to the 

NAAQS, using an approved federal 

reference method (FRM), federal 

equivalent method (FEM), or an 

approved regional method. Data from air 

monitors operated by state, local, or 

tribal agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area.52 All valid data are reviewed to 

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix K. 

SMAQMD and CARB work together to 

monitor ambient air quality in 

Sacramento County and to submit 

annual monitoring network plans to the 

EPA. The annual monitoring network 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65346 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

53On August 1, 2022, the North Highlands 

monitoring site (AQS ID: 06–067–0002) was 

dismantled at the request of the owner of the 

property, following a withdrawal of permission for 

the continued placement of the monitor on the 

property. Due to the deteriorating condition of the 

station, immediate relocation was deemed not 

feasible, and the District discontinued the monitor. 

SMAQMD will work with the EPA to identify a 

relocation site. See email dated July 28, 2022, from 

Janice Lam Snyder (SMAQMD) to Gwen Yoshimura 

(Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX), 

Subject: ‘‘Notification of Shut down of North 

Highlands Station due to property owner request.’’ 

54SMAQMD 2022 Annual Network Plan, August 

1, 2022. 

55Calcagni Memo, p. 11. 56 Id. 

plans submitted to the EPA describe the 

air monitoring network operated by the 

District and CARB and its status, as 

required under 40 CFR 58.10. Once 

received, the EPA reviews these annual 

monitoring network plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

58. The EPA examined the SacramentoRoseville-Folsom Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA), in which 

Sacramento County is located, to 

determine if the MSA currently meets 

the requirements for the minimum 

number of SLAMS for PM10 based on 

the MSA population and air quality as 

described in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D. 

EPA regulations require six to ten PM10

monitors in an MSA with the 

population and air quality of the 

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom MSA. At 

the time the District drafted the Plan 

and through July 31, 2022, there were 

eight monitoring sites in the MSA, four 

of which were in Sacramento County. In 

2022, the North Highlands monitoring 

station in Sacramento County, which 

produced air pollution data through 

2021 and part of 2022, was closed.53

Because we are evaluating the 

continued maintenance of the area using 

design values through 2022, we include 

discussion of the four monitoring sites. 

However, our evaluation of the 

adequacy of the monitoring network is 

based on the number of operational 

monitoring sites at the time of this 

rulemaking. With the temporary 

shutdown of the North Highlands 

monitoring site, the SacramentoRoseville-Folsom MSA is operating a 

total of seven monitors; thus, the MSA 

meets the minimum monitoring 

requirements. 

During the 2017–2019 design value 

period covered by the Plan, SMAQMD 

operated SLAMS monitors at three sites 

within Sacramento County (North 

Highlands, Del Paso Manor, and 

Sacramento Branch Center), and CARB 

operated a SLAMS monitor at one site 

(Sacramento T Street). Except for the 

North Highlands monitor, these 

monitors continue to operate. The Del 

Paso Manor monitoring site contains 

two collocated FRM monitors, while the 

Sacramento Branch site has, and the 

North Highlands site had, one FRM 

monitor each. The Sacramento T Street 

monitoring site has a single FEM 

monitor. The schedule for PM10 sample 

collection is one in six days for the FRM 

filter-based high-volume samplers (Del 

Paso Manor, Sacramento Branch, and 

North Highlands monitoring site), while 

the FEM monitor operates on a daily 24- 

hour schedule (Sacramento T Street 

monitoring site). 

SMAQMD and CARB jointly commit 

to continuing to operate a regulatory 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and the California SIP, 

to verify the attainment status of the 

area. The Plan contains provisions for 

the continued operation of air quality 

monitors that will provide such 

verification. These provisions include 

maintaining the operational procedures 

of data collection, routine calibrations, 

pre-run and post-run test procedures, 

and routine service checks. Continued 

adherence to the annual network plan 

and annual reviews of the entire air 

quality monitoring network will be 

performed to determine if the network 

is effectively meeting the objectives of 

the monitoring program. Furthermore, 

SMAQMD documents any modifications 

of its monitoring network in its annual 

network plan that is submitted and 

reviewed annually by the EPA.54

Therefore, the EPA proposes to 

determine that the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan contains adequate 

provisions for continued operation of an 

air quality monitoring network and a 

commitment to annually verify 

continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS for Sacramento County. 

D. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Once an area has been redesignated, 

the state should continue to operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58, to verify the continued 

attainment status of the area.55 Data 

collected by the monitoring network 

during this time are also needed to 

implement the contingency provisions 

of the maintenance plan. 

As discussed in Section IV.C of this 

document, SMAQMD monitors ambient 

concentrations of PM10 in the 

Sacramento County planning area at 

three separate monitoring stations. In 

Section 5.5 of the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan, the District commits 

to continue to operate a PM10 ambient 

monitoring network to track 

maintenance of the PM10 standard in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The 

EPA also recommends that the state 

verify continued attainment through 

methods supplementary to the ambient 

air monitoring program, e.g., through 

periodic review of the factors used in 

the development of the attainment 

inventory to track any significant 

change.56 In the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan, SMAQMD commits 

to perform periodic reviews of the air 

monitoring data and assumptions used 

to develop the emissions inventory as 

part of its effort to verify that the County 

will continue to meet the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. We are therefore proposing to 

determine that the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan contains adequate 

provisions for continued ambient PM10

monitoring and for periodic review of 

emissions inventory development 

assumptions to ensure the continued 

attainment through the maintenance 

period. 

E. Contingency Provisions 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that maintenance plans include 

contingency provisions, as the EPA 

deems necessary, to promptly correct 

any violations of the NAAQS that occur 

after the redesignation of the area. Such 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the state will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the relevant air pollutants that were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. These contingency 

provisions are distinguished from 

contingency measures required for 

nonattainment areas under CAA section 

172(c)(9), in that they are not required 

to be fully adopted measures that take 

effect without further action by the 

state. However, the contingency 

provisions of a maintenance plan are an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that contingency measures are 

adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered. The maintenance plan should 

clearly identify the measures to be 

adopted, include a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the measures, and 

contain a specific timeline for action by 

the state. In addition, the state should 

identify the specific indicators or 

triggers that will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. 

The District has adopted a 

contingency plan to address possible 

future PM10 air quality problems in the 

Sacramento County planning area. The 

contingency plan is included in Section 

6 of the Plan. As noted by the District 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65347 

57While not explicitly stated within the Plan, the 

District later confirmed that analysis of PM10

monitoring data for any violation that would trigger 

the District’s contingency plan or the exceptional 

event evaluation process would occur on a 

quarterly basis. See email dated June 12, 2023 from 

Michael Dorantes (EPA) to Janice Lam Snyder 

(SMAQMD). Subject: ‘‘Sacramento County 2nd 

PM10 Maintenance Plan; Inquiry regarding the 

Contingency Action Trigger.’’ 

58Appendix C of the Plan compiles possible 

control measures to reduce windblown dust and 

wood combustion. 

59Control strategy SIPs refer to reasonable further 

progress and attainment demonstration SIPs. 40 

CFR 93.101. 

60Transportation-related emissions of VOC and 

NOX must also be specified in PM10 maintenance 

plans if the EPA or the state finds that 

transportation-related emissions of one or both of 

these precursors within the nonattainment area are 

a significant contributor to the PM10 nonattainment 

problem and has so notified the MPO and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), or the 

applicable SIP (or SIP revision submission) 

establishes an approved (or adequate) budget for 

such emissions as part of the reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance strategy. 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii). An analysis of precursors to 

PM10 emissions, performed in the first maintenance 

plan, indicates that while NOX emissions 

contributed significantly to wintertime ambient 

PM10 concentration, VOCs did not. (See Section 7.4 

of the Plan.) Further, 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) requires 

that motor vehicle emissions budgets must be 

established, at a minimum, for the last year of the 

maintenance plan. 

61 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

in the Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan, contingency measures are to be 

triggered to promptly correct any 

violation of the standard that occurs 

during the maintenance period. In this 

case, these contingency measures will 

be triggered when the number of 

monitored exceedances, averaged over 

three years, is greater than 1.05. 

However, the contingency plan also 

includes a detailed screening process 

that allows the District and CARB, 

subject to EPA review and agreement, to 

exclude exceedances from the trigger 

calculation if the agencies collectively 

determine that information developed 

by the District is sufficient to support 

exclusion. The purpose of the screening 

process is to differentiate between 

exceedances that are not within the 

District’s or State’s control (i.e., 

exceedances that occur despite the 

implementation of reasonable 

measures), and exceedances that are 

within the District’s or State’s control 

and therefore should be included in the 

trigger calculation. Should the District 

or State exclude an exceedance from the 

contingency trigger calculation using 

this process, it would not constitute the 

EPA’s concurrence that the exceedance 

was caused by an exceptional event. 

The exceedance would therefore 

continue to be included in design value 

calculations for the planning area, 

unless CARB, following opportunity for 

public comment, submits a request for 

the EPA to concur on the exceedance as 

an exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR 

50.14, and the EPA reviews the 

submittal and formally concurs. 

Under the contingency trigger 

screening process described in the Plan, 

the District will analyze any 

exceedance(s) within the District’s or 

State’s control that leads to a violation 

of the NAAQS on a quarterly basis, in 

order to determine the possible causes 

and take appropriate action.57 The 

District will evaluate future emissions 

reductions from already-adopted rules 

to determine if those reductions would 

be sufficient to correct any 

exceedance(s). These rules could 

include previously-adopted CARB or 

District PM10 or NOX measures used to 

address ozone or PM10 SIP 

requirements. Should the additional 

reductions resulting from these 

measures be insufficient to correct the 

exceedance(s), the District has 

committed to consider the 

implementation of new rules and/or 

modifications to existing rules that 

would bring the area back into 

maintenance.58 The District will 

complete its analysis of the 

exceedance(s) that caused the violation 

and evaluate the most appropriate 

control measures to adopt or implement 

within 6 months of identifying the 

violation. This is followed by a 12- 

month period, in which the District will 

adopt and implement the control 

measures identified from this process to 

achieve the necessary reductions. In 

total, the District will act to implement 

the contingency measures within 18 

months of a violation of the PM10

NAAQS. Based on our review of the 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, we 

propose to find that the contingency 

provisions of the Plan clearly identify 

potential contingency measures, contain 

a triggering mechanism to determine 

when contingency measures are needed, 

contain a description of the process of 

recommending and implementing 

contingency measures, and contain 

specific and appropriate timelines for 

action. We also propose to find that the 

contingency trigger screening process, 

including the associated EPA review, is 

reasonably designed to distinguish 

between exceedances that were not 

within the District or State control, and 

exceedances that were within the 

District or State control and for which 

new or tightened control measures 

might be effective. Thus, we propose to 

conclude that the contingency plan in 

the Plan is adequate to ensure correction 

of any violation of the PM10 NAAQS 

that occurs after redesignation, as 

required by section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 

actions will not: (1) cause or contribute 

to violations of the NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, the EPA, 

FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an 

area’s regional transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs 

conform to the applicable SIP. This 

demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the budgets contained in submitted or 

approved control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans.59

These control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans typically set budgets 

for criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from onroad vehicles such as cars and trucks. 

Budgets are generally established for 

specific years for those specific 

pollutants or precursors. PM10

maintenance plan submittals must 

identify budgets for transportation 

related PM10 emissions for the last year 

of the maintenance period.60

For budgets in a maintenance plan to 

be approvable, they must meet, at a 

minimum, the EPA’s adequacy 

criteria.61 To meet these requirements, 

the budgets must be consistent, when 

considered with emissions from all 

other sources, with maintenance of the 

NAAQS and reflect all the motor vehicle 

control measures relied upon for the 

maintenance demonstration. 

The EPA also determines the 

adequacy of budgets in certain 

submitted SIPs. The adequacy process is 

separate from the approval process. The 

EPA’s process for determining adequacy 

of a budget consists of three basic steps: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65348 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

62 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 63 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 64The District has determined, based on 

proportional rollback analysis, that the addition of 

0.5 tpd of NOX in 2024 will increase the future 

PM10 concentrations by less than 0.3 mg/m3, which 

satisfies the requirements outlined in 40 CFR 

93.124(a). 

65AP–42 is the EPA’s Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors. It has been published 

since 1972 as the primary source of the EPA’s 

emission factor information. It contains emission 

factors and process information for more than 200 

air pollution source categories. A source category is 

a specific industry sector or group of similar 

emitting sources. The emission factors have been 

developed and compiled from source test data, 

material balance studies, and engineering estimates. 

66The six counties are El Dorado, Placer, 

Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties. 

67 Information on SACSIM is located at: https:// 

www.sacog.org/modelingandthe2020MTP/SCS is 

located at: https://www.sacog.org/2020- 

metropolitan-transportation-plansustainablecommunities-strategy-update. 

68 85 FR 24174 (June 29, 2020). 

69See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3). 

70 40 CFR 93.122(e). 

(1) notifying the public of a SIP 

submittal, (2) providing the public the 

opportunity to comment on the budget 

during a public comment period, and (3) 

making a finding of adequacy or 

inadequacy. The process for 

determining the adequacy of a 

submitted budget is codified at 40 CFR 

93.118(f). The EPA can notify the public 

by either posting an announcement that 

the EPA has received SIP budgets on the 

EPA’s adequacy website,62 or via a 

Federal Register notice of proposed 

rulemaking when the EPA reviews the 

adequacy of a maintenance plan budget 

simultaneously with its review and 

action on the SIP submittal itself.63

The Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan includes budgets for direct PM10

and NOX, on an average winter day, for 

the first year of the maintenance plan 

(2024), an interim year (2027), and the 

last year (2033) of the maintenance plan. 

The applicable source categories within 

the budget for PM10 include direct 

exhaust (includes tire and brake wear), 

transportation related (road) 

construction emissions, re-entrained 

paved and unpaved road dust. NOX

budgets are based on combustion 

activity from on-road motor vehicles. In 

developing the budgets, the District also 

rounded up the motor vehicle emissions 

estimates to the nearest tenth of a ton 

and included a safety margin of 0.5 tpd 

of NOX to the 2024 NOX budgets.64 The 

conformity budgets for these categories 

and years are provided in Table 8 of this 

document. 

TABLE 8—TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY PM10 AREA

[PM10 tons per average winter day] 

Source category 

2024 2027 2033 

NOX PM10 NOX PM10 NOX PM10

Vehicular Exhaust a (includes tire and 

break wear for PM10) ........................... 10.68 2.09 9.57 2.17 8.30 2.27 

Re-Entrained Paved Road Dust b (Total) N/A 8.25 N/A 8.52 N/A 9.15 

Re-Entrained Unpaved Road Dust (City 

and Country Roads) ............................. N/A 0.62 N/A 0.61 N/A 0.59 

Road Construction Dust ........................... N/A 3.65 N/A 4.04 N/A 4.31 

Safety Margin ........................................... 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Total c ................................................ 11.18 14.62 9.57 15.34 8.30 16.32 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets d ......... 11.2 14.7 9.6 15.4 8.4 16.4 

aThis reflects the adjustment factor for SAFE Vehicle Rule using EMFAC 2017. 

bPaved road dust was not measured directly and is based on CARB’s Miscellaneous Process Methodology, which computed paved road dust 

using the emission factor equation provided by EPA’s AP–42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors document.65

cValues from California Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM) 2019: External Adjustment Reporting Tool Version 1.02 may not add 

up due to rounding. dThis reflects the adjustment factor for SAFE Vehicle Rule using EMFAC 2017. 

Source: Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, Table 7–1, extracted from CEPAM 2019: External Adjustments Reporting Tool Version 1.02 and 

EMFAC2017. 

The District, the Sacramento County 

MPO, and CARB jointly developed the 

budgets, taking into consideration the 

expected population-related growth 

trends for the county since the first 

maintenance plan. Specifically, 

Sacramento Council of Governments 

(SACOG), the MPO for the six county 

Sacramento region,66 used both the 

Sacramento Activity-Based Simulation 

Model (SACSIM) program and data 

contained within the 2020 Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy (‘‘2020 MTP/ 

SCS’’) to develop a travel demand 

model to forecast VMT for future years 

within the area.67 Transportation 

activity data from the 2020 MTP/SCS 

and emissions modeling generated by 

CARB’s EMFAC 2017 model were used 

to calculate the budgets. CARB further 

adjusted the budgets in the Plan to 

account for the Safer Affordable FuelEfficient Vehicle Rule Part 1.68

In contrast to PM2.5, where road dust 

applies in transportation conformity 

only if found to be significant or if 

budgets include it, for PM10 road dust is 

always considered.69 The EPA requires 

road dust emissions to be included in 

all transportation conformity analyses of 

direct PM10 emissions because fugitive 

dust from roadways and other sources 

dominate PM10 on-road emissions 

inventories. The budgets in the Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan, therefore, 

include paved and unpaved road 

emissions. 

Regional PM10 emissions analyses for 

transportation conformity 

determinations in PM10 nonattainment 

and maintenance areas must also 

account for highway and transit project 

construction-related fugitive PM10

emissions if the control strategy or 

maintenance plan identifies such 

emissions as a contributor to the air 

quality problem.70 Emissions estimates 

developed for the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan show that fugitive 

PM10 emissions from highway and 

transit project construction are a 

significant portion of total regional PM10

emissions for the Sacramento County 

planning area. Consequently, the 

budgets in the Plan reflect highway and 

transit project construction-related 

fugitive dust. 

We evaluated the budgets against our 

adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

and (5) as part of our review of the 

budget’s approvability. While adequacy 

and approval are two separate actions, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65349 

71Technical Support Document for the Adequacy 

Review of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

within the Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan 

for Sacramento County can be found within the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

72See the transportation conformity regulation at 

40 CFR 93.119(f). 

73 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii). 

reviewing the budgets in terms of the 

adequacy criteria informs the EPA’s 

decision to propose to approve the 

budgets. We have completed our 

detailed review of the Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan for Sacramento 

County and are proposing herein to 

approve the Plan including the 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

PM10 NAAQS in the area through the 

year 2033. We have also reviewed the 

budgets in the Plan and found that they 

are consistent with the maintenance 

demonstration for which we are 

proposing approval, are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified, are 

based on control measures that have 

already been adopted and implemented, 

and meet all other applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements, including 

the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5).71 For these reasons, 

the EPA proposes to approve the 2024, 

2027, and 2033 budgets in the Second 

10-Year Maintenance Plan. 

In addition, in this document the EPA 

is announcing the beginning of the 

adequacy process for these budgets. 

Under the transportation conformity 

regulation, the EPA can begin this 

process with our proposed action on the 

second maintenance plan.72 The public 

has 30 days to comment on the 

adequacy of the budgets, per the 

transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii). Any comments 

on the adequacy of the budgets should 

be submitted to the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

When we finalize our proposed 

approval of the budgets, they must be 

used by SACOG (i.e., the MPO for this 

area) for transportation conformity 

determinations for the Sacramento 

County planning area effective upon the 

publication date of our finalized 

approval.73

V. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for 

the reasons set forth in this document, 

the EPA is proposing to approve the 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan 

submitted by CARB by letter dated 

October 21, 2021, as a revision to the 

California SIP. We are proposing to 

approve the maintenance demonstration 

and contingency provisions as meeting 

all applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A, and the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for 2024, 2027, and 2033 

(shown in Table 8) for transportation 

conformity purposes, as we propose to 

find they meet all applicable criteria for 

such budgets including the adequacy 

criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e). 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions, including our 

concurrence on the exceptional events 

demonstration for the 2018 exceedances 

in Sacramento County as part of the 

technical basis for the approval of the 

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan, as 

well as the adequacy of the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. We will 

accept comments from the public for 30 

days following publication of this 

proposal in the Federal Register and 

will consider any relevant comments 

before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this rulemaking does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. If finalized, this action is 

expected to have a neutral to positive 

impact on the air quality of the affected 

area. Consideration of EJ is not required 

as part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65350 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1 42 U.S.C. 4370m(11) (defining ‘‘environmental 

review’’ as ‘‘the agency procedures and processes 

for applying a categorical exclusion or for preparing 

an environmental assessment, an environmental 

impact statement, or other document required 

under [the National Environmental Policy Act]’’). 

2 42 U.S.C. 4370m(3) (defining ‘‘authorization’’ as 

‘‘any license, permit, approval, finding, 

determination, or other administrative decision 

issued by an agency and any interagency 

consultation that is required or authorized under 

Federal law in order to site, construct, reconstruct, 

or commence operations of a covered project 

administered by a Federal agency or, in the case of 

a State that chooses to participate in the 

environmental review and authorization process in 

accordance with [42 U.S.C.] 4370m–2(c)(3)(A) 

. . . , a State agency’’). 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 18, 2023. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20555 Filed 9–21–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL PERMITTING 

IMPROVEMENT STEERING COUNCIL 

40 CFR Part 1900 

[Docket Number 2023–001] 

RIN 3121–AA04 

Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of 

Projects That Are Eligible for Coverage 

Under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act 

AGENCY: Federal Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council 

(Permitting Council) proposes to amend 

its regulations to revise the scope of 

‘‘mining’’ as a sector with infrastructure 

projects eligible for coverage under Title 

41 of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST–41). The 

Permitting Council added ‘‘mining’’ as a 

FAST–41 sector in January 2021. This 

proposed rule would: (1) revise the 

FAST–41 ‘‘mining’’ sector to apply 

solely to critical minerals mining 

projects; and (2) expand the scope of the 

sector to include infrastructure 

constructed to support critical minerals 

supply chain activities, including 

critical minerals beneficiation, 

processing, and recycling. The proposed 

modification will help ensure that 

qualified critical minerals supply chain 

projects beyond critical minerals mining 

can obtain FAST–41 coverage. FAST–41 

was enacted to improve the timeliness, 

predictability, transparency, and 

accountability of the Federal 

environmental review and authorization 

processes for covered infrastructure 

projects. FAST–41 coverage does not 

predetermine or affect the outcome of 

any Federal decision-making process 

with respect to a covered project, or 

modify any required environmental 

review or public or tribal consultation 

process. 

DATES: Please send your comments on 

this proposal to the Permitting Council 

Office of the Executive Director on or 

before October 23, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Permitting Council Docket 

Number 2023–001 or RIN 3121–AA04, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for sending comments. 

• Mail: Federal Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council, Office of 

the Executive Director, 1800 M St. NW, 

Suite 6006, Washington, DC 20036, 

Attention: RIN 3121–AA04. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

G. Cossa, General Counsel, Federal 

Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council, 1800 M St. NW, Suite 6006, 

Washington, DC 20036, john.cossa@

fpisc.gov, or by telephone at 202–255– 

6936. 

Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

may call the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to 

contact this individual during normal 

business hours or to leave a message at 

other times. FIRS is available 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week. You will receive 

a reply to a message during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. FAST–41 and the Permitting Council 

Established in 2015 by Title 41 of the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST–41), 42 U.S.C. 4370m et seq., 

the Permitting Council is a unique 

Federal agency charged with improving 

the transparency and predictability of 

the Federal environmental review and 

authorization process for certain 

infrastructure projects. The Permitting 

Council is comprised of the Permitting 

Council Executive Director, who serves 

as the Council Chair; 13 Federal agency 

Council members (including deputy 

secretary-level designees of the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, Army, 

Commerce, Interior, Energy, 

Transportation, Defense, Homeland 

Security, and Housing and Urban 

Development, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the Chairs of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation); and the Chair of the 

Council on Environmental Quality and 

the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 42 U.S.C. 

4370m–1(a) & (b). 

The Permitting Council coordinates 

Federal environmental reviews 1 and 

authorizations 2 for projects that seek 

and qualify for FAST–41 coverage. 

FAST–41 covered projects are entitled 

to comprehensive permitting timetables 

and transparent, collaborative 

management of those timetables on the 

Federal Permitting Dashboard in 

compliance with FAST–41 procedural 

requirements. 42 U.S.C. 4370m–2(c) & 

(d). Sponsors of FAST–41 covered 

projects also benefit from the direct 

engagement of the Permitting Council 

Executive Director and the Permitting 

Council members in timely 

identification and resolution of 

permitting issues that affect covered 

projects’ permitting timetables. The 

Permitting Council Executive Director 

additionally may transfer funds from the 

Environmental Review and 

Improvement Fund (ERIF) to Federal 

agencies and state, local, and tribal 

governments to make the environmental 

review and authorization process for 

FAST–41 covered projects more timely 

and efficient. 42 U.S.C. 4370m–8(d)(3). 

II. FAST–41 Infrastructure Sectors and 

Covered Project Criteria 

FAST–41 provides that activities 

located in the United States that require 

authorization or environmental review 

by a Federal agency involving 

construction of infrastructure that are in 

the following sectors may be eligible for 

FAST–41 coverage: (1) renewable 

energy production; (2) conventional 

energy production; (3) electricity 

transmission; (4) surface transportation; 

(5) aviation; (6) ports and waterways; (7) 

water resource projects; (8) broadband; 

(9) pipelines; (10) manufacturing; (11) 

semiconductors; (12) artificial 

intelligence and machine learning; (13) 

high-performance computing and 

advanced computer hardware and 

software; (14) quantum information 

science and technology; (15) data 

storage and data management; (16) 

cybersecurity; (17) carbon capture; and 

(18) energy storage. 42 U.S.C. 

4370m(6)(A). FAST–41 authorizes the 

Permitting Council to designate 

additional sectors by majority vote of 

the Permitting Council members. Id. On 

January 4, 2021, a majority of the 

Permitting Council voted to designate 

‘‘mining’’ as a FAST–41 sector, and on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1