+(,121/,1(

Citation: 80 Fed. Reg. 1482 2015 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Aug 25 16:30:52 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 7/Monday, January 12, 2015/Proposed Rules

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed action. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. Please note that if EPA

receives adverse comment on part of the

rule and if that part can be severed from

the remainder of the rule, EPA may

adopt as final those parts of the rule that

are not the subject of an adverse

comment. For additional information,

see the direct final rule which is located

in the rules section of this Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Incorporation by reference,

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: December 19, 2014.

Karl Brooks,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Environmental Protection

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part

52 as set forth below:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Q-Iowa

* 2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising the entry for

"CHAPTER V" to read as follows:

§52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective EPA approval Explanation date date

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]

Polk County

CHAPTER V Polk County 08/05/13 January 12, 2015 Article I, Section 5-2, definition of "variance," "anaerobic lagoon," and

Board of [Insert Federal "greenhouse gases"; Article Ill, Incineration and Open Burning, SecHealth Rules Register cita- tion 5-7(d) Variance Application; Article VI, Sections 5-16(n), (o)

and Regula- tion]. and (p); Article VIII; Article IX, Sections 5-27(3) and (4); Article X,

tions Air Pollu- Section 5-28, subsections (a) through (c), and Article X, Section 5-

tion Chapter V. 35(b)(5); Article XIII; and Article XVI, Section 5-75 are not part of

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

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

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

* * * * *

[FR Doe. 2015-00080 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0813; FRL-9921-22-

Region 9]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; California; San

Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as

Serious Nonattainment for the 1997

PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to reclassify

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate

nonattainment area, including areas of

Indian country within it, as a Serious

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2 .5

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) based on EPA's determination

that the area cannot practicably attain

these NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date of April 5, 2015. Upon

final reclassification as a Serious area,

California will be required to submit a

Serious area plan including a

demonstration that the plan provides for

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-

hour PM 2.5 standards in the SJV area by

the applicable attainment date, which is

no later than December 31, 2015, or by

the most expeditious alternative date

practicable, in accordance with the

requirements of part D of title I of the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must arrive by

February 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2014-0813, by one of the

following methods:

* Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions.

* Email: lee.anita@epa.gov.

* Mail or delivery: Anita Lee; Air

Planning Office (AIR-2); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9; 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

online at www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through

www.regulations.gov or email. The

www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, and EPA

will not know your identity or contact

information unless you provide it in the

body of your comment. If you send

email directly to EPA, your email

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the public

comment. If EPA cannot read your

comments due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

Docket: The index to the docket

(docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-

0813) for this proposed rule is available

electronically on the

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

www.regulations.gov Web site and in

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105. While all documents

in the docket are listed in the index,

some information may be publicly

available only at the hard copy location

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

may not be publicly available at either

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

copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, (415) 972-3958, lee.anita@

epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we," "us"

and "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for Proposed Action

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM2 .5 Air Quality

Monitoring Data

III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment

and Applicable Attainment Dates

IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian

Country

V. PM2 .

5 Serious Area SIP Requirements

VI. Summary of Proposed Action and

Request for Public Comment

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Proposed Action

On July 18, 1997, EPA established

new national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.

5,

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5

microns or less, including an annual

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic

meter (gtg/m 3) based on a 3-year average

of annual mean PM 2.

5 concentrations,

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

m 3 based on a 3-year average of 98th

percentile 24-hour PM 2 .5

concentrations.' EPA established these

standards after considering substantial

evidence from numerous health studies

demonstrating that serious health effects

are associated with exposures to PM 2.

5

concentrations above the levels of these

standards.

Epidemiological studies have shown

statistically significant correlations

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

50.7. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA

strengthened the 24-hour PM 2.

5 NAAQS by

lowering the level to 35 pg/m 3. See 71 FR 61144

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

March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened the annual PM 2 5

NAAQS by lowering the level to 12 pg/m 3

. See 78

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

this preamble, all references to the PM 2.5 NAAQS,

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour

PM 2.5 standard of 65 pg/m 3 and annual standard of

15.0 pg/m 3 as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.

between elevated PM 2.

5 levels and

premature mortality. Other important

health effects associated with PM 2.

5

exposure include aggravation of

respiratory and cardiovascular disease

(as indicated by increased hospital

admissions, emergency room visits,

absences from school or work, and

restricted activity days), changes in lung

function and increased respiratory

symptoms, as well as new evidence for

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular

health. Individuals particularly

sensitive to PM2 .5 exposure include

older adults, people with heart and lung

disease, and children. 2

PM2 .5 can be emitted directly into the

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle

(primary PM2 .

5 or direct PM2 .5) or can be

formed in the atmosphere as a result of

various chemical reactions from

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides,

sulfur oxides, volatile organic

compounds, and ammonia (secondary

PM 2 .

5 ). 3

Following promulgation of a new or

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by

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

designate areas throughout the nation as

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.

On January 5, 2005, EPA published

initial air quality designations for the

1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS,

using air quality monitoring data for the

three-year periods of 2001-2003 and

2002-2004. 4 These designations became

effective on April 5, 2005. 5 EPA

designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV)

area as nonattainment for both the 1997

annual PM2 .

5 standard (15.0 gg/m 3 ) and

the 1997 24-hour PM2 .

5 standard (65 jig/

m 3 ).6

The SJV PM2 .

5 nonattainment area

encompasses over 23,000 square miles

and includes all or part of eight

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings,

and the valley portion of Kern.7 The

area is home to 4 million people and is

the nation's leading agricultural region.

Stretching over 250 miles from north to

south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is

partially enclosed by the Coast

Mountain range to the west, the

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and

the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD

or District) has primary responsibility

2 See EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate

Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P99/002bF, October 2004.

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

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

5Id.

6 See 40 CFR 81.305.

7 For a precise description of the geographic

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.

for developing plans to provide for

attainment of the NAAQS in this area.

The District works cooperatively with

the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) in preparing these plans.

Between 2007 and 2011, California

made six SIP submittals to address

nonattainment area planning

requirements for the 1997 PM 2 .

5 NAAQS

in the SJV. 8 We refer to these submittals

collectively as the "SJV PM 2.

5 SIP." On

November 9, 2011, EPA approved all

elements of the SJV PM 2.

5 SIP except for

the contingency measures, which EPA

disapproved. 9 As part of this action and

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

EPA granted California's request for an

extension of the attainment date for the

SJV area to April 5, 2015.10 EPA took

these actions in accordance with the

"Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation

Rule," which EPA issued in April 2007

to assist states in their development of

SIPs to meet the Act's attainment

planning requirements for the 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS (hereafter "2007 PM 2.

5

Implementation Rule")." In July 2013,

the State submitted a revised PM 2.

5

contingency measure plan for the SJV,

which EPA fully approved in May

2014.12

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

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its

decision in a challenge by the Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to

EPA's 2007 PM 2.

5 Implementation

Rule. 1 3 In NRDC, the court held that

EPA erred in implementing the 1997

PM 2.5 standards solely pursuant to the

general implementation requirements of

subpart 1, without also considering the

requirements specific to nonattainment

areas for particulate matter with a

diameter of 10 microns or less (PMo) in

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

The court reasoned that the plain

meaning of the CAA requires

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

* See id. at 69924.

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

attainment date for a nonattainment area is "the

date by which attainment can be achieved as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five

years from the date such area was designated

nonattainment," except that EPA may extend the

attainment date as appropriate for a period no

greater than ten years from the date of designation

as nonattainment, considering the severity of

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of

pollution control measures. CAA section

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

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

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

on EPA's prior interpretation of the Act as allowing

for implementation of the PM2 .5 NAAQS solely

pursuant to the general nonattainment area

provisions of subpart 1 and not the more specific

provisions for particulate matter nonattainment

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

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

13 See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,

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

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

implementation of the 1997 PM 2.

5

standards under subpart 4 because PM2 .5

particles fall within the statutory

definition of PM10 and are thus subject

to the same statutory requirements as

PM10 . The court remanded the rule and

instructed EPA "to repromulgate these

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent

with this opinion."' 14

Consistent with the NRDC decision,

on June 2, 2014, EPA published a final

rule classifying all areas currently

designated nonattainment for the 1997

and/or 2006 PM 2.5 standards as

Moderate under subpart 4.15 EPA also

established a deadline of December 31,

2014 for states to submit attainmentrelated and nonattainment new source

review (NNSR) SIP elements required

for these areas pursuant to subpart 4.16

This rulemaking did not affect any

action that EPA had previously taken

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

for a PM 2 .

5 nonattainment area.' 7

Accordingly, EPA's previous approval

of the April 5, 2015 attainment date for

the SJV area remains in effect.18

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

prior to an area's attainment date, EPA

has discretionary authority to reclassify

as a Serious nonattainment area "any

area that the Administrator determines

cannot practicably attain" the PM 2.5

NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area

attainment date. 19 On September 25,

2014, the District requested that EPA

reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as

Serious nonattainment for the 1997

PM 2.

5 standards. This request included

a demonstration that the SJV cannot

practicably attain the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard by the April 5, 2015 attainment

date. 2 0

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM2.

5 Air

Quality Monitoring Data

A determination of whether an area's

air quality currently meets the PM 2.5

NAAQS is generally based upon the

most recent three years of complete,

quality-assured data gathered at

established State and Local Air

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a

nonattainment area and entered into

EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)

database. Data from air monitors

operated by state/local agencies in

compliance with EPA monitoring

requirements must be submitted to

AQS. Monitoring agencies annually

certify that these data are accurate to the

best of their knowledge. Accordingly,

EPA relies primarily on data in AQS

when determining the attainment status

of areas. 21

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7

and in accordance with part 50,

appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2 .5

standard is met when the "annual PM2 .

5

NAAQS design value" (based on the 3-

year average of PM 2 .

5 annual mean mass

concentrations) 22 is less than or equal to

15.0 gtg/m 3 at each eligible monitoring

site. The 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 standard is

met when the "24-hour PM 2.

5 NAAQS

design value" (based on the 3-year

average of annual 98th percentile 24-

hour PM 2.

5 mass concentrations) 23 is

less than or equal to 65 gtg/m 3 at each

eligible monitoring site.

A. PM2.5 Trends in the SJV

Ambient annual and 24-hour PM 2.5

NAAQS design value levels in the SJV

are the highest recorded in the United

States at 18.1 gtg/m 3 (Madera) and 65 gg/

m 3 (Bakersfield), respectively, for the

2011-2013 period.24 The levels and

composition of ambient PM 2.5 in the SJV

differ by season. 25 Higher PM 2.5

concentrations occur during the winter,

between late November and February,

when the SJV experiences extended

periods of stagnant weather with cold

foggy conditions which encourage wood

burning, a source of directly emitted

particulates (direct PM 2.5), and are

conducive to the formation of

ammonium nitrate from the reaction of

nitrogen oxides (NOx) with ammonia.

Tables 1 and 2 show the annual and 24-

hour concentrations recorded at PM 2.5

monitoring sites in the SJV during the

2005-2013 period.

TABLE 1-ANNUAL PM 2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUESa IN gg/m 3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV

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

Bakersfield:

P la n z ..................................................

C A A v e ...............................................

Golden State Hwy ..............................

C o rco ra n ....................................................

H an fo rd ......................................................

V is a lia ........................................................

Fresno:

P a c ific .................................................

G a rla n d ..............................................

C lo v is .........................................................

T ra n q u ility ..................................................

M a d e ra ......................................................

Merced:

M S tre e t .............................................

C o ff ee .................................................

60290016

60290014

60290010

60310004

60311004

61072002

60195025

60190011

60195001

60192009

60392010

60472510

60470003

15.6

14.5

n/a

n/a

15.8

14.8

13.8 b 14.3

16.0

7.4

19.0

10.4

14.3

14 Id.

15 See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 16 Id.

'7Id. at 31569.

13M.; see also 79 FR 29327 at 29329 (May 22,

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

withdraw or revise [the November 9, 2011] final

rule, which NRDC does not compel, our final action

on the SJV PM 2.5 SIP remains effective...").

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

expression of delegated rulemaking authority. See

"State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

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

1992) (hereafter "General Preamble") at 13537, n.

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

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

timeframes any areas that it determines appropriate

for reclassification by those dates, these

subparagraphs do not restrict the general authority

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

authority must be exercised at certain times. See id.

20 See letter dated September 25, 2014 from Seyed

Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control

Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region 9, "RE: San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin

Valley as a Serious PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area for

the Federal 1997 PM2 .5 Standard," attaching

Memorandum dated August 21, 2014 from Seyed

Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO and Sheraz

Gill, Project Coordinator, to the SJVUAPCD

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

Approve Actions to Address Air Quality Impacts

Resulting from the Exceptional Weather Conditions

Caused by the Recent Drought" (hereafter

"Sadredin Memo").

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

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

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

D, and E.

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

23 See id.

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

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

available at http://www.epa.govlairtrendsl

values.htm] ("PM25 DesignValues 20112013

FINAL 08 28 14") (hereafter "2013 p.m.2.5 Design

Value Reports"). The Bakersfield monitor also

recorded the nation's second highest annual PM2 .5

NAAQS design value (17.3 pg/m 3) during this

period. See id.

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

(proposed action on SJV PM2, Plan).

17.3

16.4

n/a

n/a

17.0

16.6

14.7

b 15.4

16.4

7.8

18.1

11.1

13.3

1484
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 7/Monday, January 12, 2015/Proposed Rules 1485

TABLE 1-ANNUAL PM 2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES a IN gg/m3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV-Continued

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

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

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

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

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

Source: 2013 PM 2.

5 Design Value Reports. The term na" means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40

CFR part 50, appendix N). aThe annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.

For example, the annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at

that monitor. The 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 15.0 pg/m 3 or less.

bThe Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year 2012. The design

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

TABLE 2-24-HOUR PM 2.5 NAAQS DESIGN VALUESa IN gg/m 3 FOR MONITORS IN THE SJV

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

Bakersfield:

Planz .................................................. 60290016 54 60 68 70 70 65 55 47 60 CA Ave ............................................... 60290014 58 62 66 66 68 62 62 58 65

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

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

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

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

Fresno:

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

Garland .............................................. 60190011 60 58 63 58 60 54 58 b59 b6 2

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

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

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

Merced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: 2013 PM 2.

5 Design Value Reports. The term na" means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40

CFR part 50, appendix N). aThe 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR

part 50, appendix N. For example, the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the 98th percentile PM 2.5 concentrations for

2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 65 pg/m 3 or less.

bThe Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year 2012. The design

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

B. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997

Annual PM 2 .5 Standard by April 5, 2015

In its September 25, 2014 letter to

EPA, the District provided ambient air

quality data showing that the SJV area

cannot attain the 1997 PM2 .5 annual

standard by April 5, 2015.26

Specifically, the District provided

annual average PM2 .5 concentrations

recorded at monitoring sites in the SJV

for 2012 and 2013, and then calculated

the maximum 2014 annual average

concentration for each monitoring site

that would result in a 3-year average

PM2 .5 concentration of 15.0 gg/m 3 at

that site. According to the District, the

maximum 2014 annual average

concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz

site (which recorded the area's highest

annual concentrations in 2013) that will

enable the site to show a design value

at or below 15.0 gg/m 3 for 2014 is 7.5

gg/m3.27 The annual average value for a

given year is calculated based on the

26 See Sadredin Memo at 2-6.

27 Id. at Table 3.

quarterly averages for that year. 28 The

District reported that the average PM 2 .

5

concentration measured at the

Bakersfield-Planz site in the first quarter

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

Thus, according to the District, average

PM2 .

5 concentrations at this monitoring

site for the remaining three quarters of

2014 would have to be zero in order to

result in a design value at or below 15.0

g/m 3 for 2014.30 The remaining three

quarters of 2014 include November and

December, which, like other winter

months in the SJV, tend to experience

high PM2 .5 concentrations. These

preliminary data and analyses indicate

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

PM2 .

5 NAAQS design value at or below

15.0 gtg/m 3 by April 5, 2015.

EPA also independently evaluated

preliminary 2014 PM2 .

5 air quality data

available in AQS as of August 2014 to

2840 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.4.

29 See Sadredin Memo at Table 4. 30 Id.

assess the District's representations. 3 1

Table 3 shows four monitoring locations

for which preliminary 2014 AQS data

already indicate that the 3-year average

PM2 .5 concentration for 2012-2014 will

likely be well above 15.0 gtg/m 3.

Specifically, for each of these

monitoring sites, EPA calculated the

maximum 2014 average PM2 .5

concentration that would enable the site

to show a 2014 annual PM2 .5 NAAQS

design value at or below 15.0 gg/m3.32

31 See Memorandum from Elfego Felix and Scott

Bohning to Docket entitled "Practicability of SJV

2014 attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS" dated

December 10, 2014 with attachment entitled "SJV

PM2 5 1997 std impracticable 2014-12-10.xlsx"

(hereafter "Felix and Bohning Memo").

32 The small differences between the District's

and EPA's calculations of "maximum 2014" values

are due to the use of different rounding

conventions. EPA's calculations of maximum 2014

values are based on the rounding convention in 40

CFR part 50, appendix N, which provides that

intermediate calculations are not rounded, and that

a design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 pg/

m 3 is rounded down to 15.0 pg/m 3

. See 40 CFR part

50, appendix N, section 4.3. In computing the

maximum 2014 concentration consistent with

attainment and consistent with 2012 and 2013

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

As shown in Table 3, the 2014 annual

average PM 2.5 concentration at the

Visalia, Corcoran, and Hanford sites

would have to be nearly 20 percent

lower than the lowest annual averages

observed at each of those sites during

the 2003-2013 period, and the 2014

annual average PM2 .5 concentration at

the Bakersfield-Planz site would have to

be nearly 50 percent lower than the

lowest annual average observed during

that same period, in order to result in a

2014 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS design value

at or below 15.0 gg/m3. 3 3

TABLE 3-PRELIMINARY RECORDED 2014 ANNUAL AVERAGE PM 2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN gg/m 3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN

SJV AND COMPARISON TO LOWEST RECORDED CONCENTRATIONS

Percent

EPA estimate for difference

Average max 2014 annual recorded between max recorded average annual 2014 and

2014 a allowed to (year) b lowest

attain b average recorded annual

verage

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

V is a lia .............................................................................................. 2 7 .9 1 1 .4 1 3 .6 (2 0 1 0 ) 1 6

C o rco ra n .......................................................................................... 2 2 .9 13 .0 15 .6 (2 0 13) 16

H a nfo rd ............................................................................................ 18 .7 12 .1 14 .8 (2 0 12 ) 18

aSource: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Combined Site Sample Values Report, PM 2.5, 2014 (Report Date: August 7, 2014) (preliminary 2014

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

If 2014 monitoring data is timely

certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 CFR

58.15) and EPA's determination of

whether the SJV area meets the PM 2.

5

NAAQS occurs after this date, the

determination would be based on

monitoring data for the 2012-2014

period as this would be the most recent

3-year period for which complete,

quality-assured and certified monitoring

data is available. Because a

determination of attainment requires

that each eligible monitoring site in the

area show a design value at or below the

level of the PM 2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR

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

design value above this level at one

eligible monitor would render

attainment by April 5, 2015 impossible.

In sum, air quality data for the 2003-

2014 period indicate that it is not

practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz

monitoring site to show an annual PM 2.

5

NAAQS design value at or below 15.0

gtg/m 3 by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV

annual mean concentrations, EPA did not round the

2012 and 2013 means in the intermediate steps of

the calculation, and used 15.04 as the highest

design value consistent with the standard. In

contrast, the Sadredin memo rounded 2012 and

2013 means to one decimal place initially, and used

15.00 as the highest attaining design value.

33 See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment.

34 Any reclassification of a Moderate PM 2 .5

nonattainment area as Serious based on a

determination that the area cannot practicably

attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date

will be based on the facts and circumstances of the

particular nonattainment area at issue. Monitored

air quality and the reductions in ambient

concentrations that the area would need to achieve

in order to monitor attainment are important

factors. Another important factor is whether

area cannot practicably attain the 1997

annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS by this date. 34

C. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997

24-Hour PM2.

5 Standard by April 5,

2015

The District's September 25, 2014

letter did not specifically address the

SJV area's ability to attain the 24-hour

PM 2.

5 standard by April 5, 2015. EPA

independently reviewed ambient air

quality data available in AQS, however,

to consider whether the SJV area can

practicably attain the 24-hour standard

by this date.

Table 4 shows the 98th percentile 24-

hour average PM 2.5 concentrations

recorded in 2012 and 2013 at selected

monitoring sites. The 98th percentile

24-hour concentrations in 2013 were

higher than in 2012, and in some cases

the 2013 value was significantly higher

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

Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site. 35

Based on these observed 98th percentile

values in 2012 and 2013, EPA

calculated for each of these monitoring

additional control measures could be implemented

in time and reduce emissions adequately to attain

the NAAQS. Given the significant reductions in

ambient PM2.5 levels that the SJV nonattainment

area would need to monitor attainment, and the

extremely short time remaining before the

applicable attainment date for this area (April 5,

2015), EPA focused its analysis in this proposal on

air quality-related information.

35 The Sadredin Memo cites weather conditions

associated with the extreme drought in California,

including low precipitation, high stagnation, and

strong inversions, among the reasons for the high

PM 2 .5 concentrations observed in the winter of

2013-2014. See Sadredin Memo at 3-7. 3 6 Identification of the 98th percentile 24-hour

concentration is based on the number of creditable

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

sites the maximum 98th percentile 24-

hour concentration in 2014 that would

enable the site to show a 2014 24-hour

PM 2.5 NAAQS design value at or below

65 gtg/m 3. EPA also calculated a low

estimate of the 98th percentile 24-hour

concentration for 2014 at each of these

sites, based on preliminary data

reported to AQS for the first quarter of

2014 and a conservative assumption

that 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations

remain below these levels for the

remainder of the year at each

monitoring site. 36 As shown in Table 4,

EPA's low estimates of the 98th

percentile concentrations for 2014 at the

two monitoring sites in Bakersfield

(Planz and California Avenue) already

exceed the maximum 2014 values that

would enable these two sites to show a

24-hour PM 2.

5 NAAQS design value for

2014 at or below 65 gg/m 3 . Thus, these

two monitoring sites in Bakersfield

cannot practicably show a 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS design value at or below 65 jag/

m 3 by April 5, 2015.

appendix N, section 4.5. Specifically, in any year

for which there are at least 351 creditable samples,

the 98th percentile is the 8th highest concentration,

and as the number of creditable samples decreases

the 98th percentile concentration increases. See id.

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

percentile 24-hour concentration for 2014 at each

monitoring site, EPA assumed conservatively that

preliminary 2014 monitoring data available in AQS

(see Table 4) represented the highest values for

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

these sites for the remainder of 2014) and that the

total number of creditable samples in 2014 would

be consistent with the sampling frequency observed

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

and attachment. We note that 2014 monitoring data

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

40 CFR 58.15.

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

TABLE 4-PRELIMINARY RECORDED 2014 24-HOUR PM 2.

5 CONCENTRATIONS (IN pg/m3) FOR SELECTED SITES IN SJV

AND CALCULATION OF 98TH PERCENTILE VALUES

Low estimate Max 98th percentile 98th percentile 98th percentile of 98th allowed in

in 2012a in 2013a percentile in 2014 to 2014 b attain b

Bake rsfield- P lanz ........................................................................................... 40 .6 96 .7 64 .4 58 .9

Bake rsfield- C A A ve ....................................................................................... 56 .4 71.8 72 .6 68 .0

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

F re sno- P a cific ................................................................................................ 5 1 .3 7 1 .6 6 1 .8 73 .3

Fresno- G arland ............................................................................................. 52 .6 63 .8 65 .5 79 .8

aSource: See 2013 PM 2.

5 Design Value Reports.

b See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment (calculations based on preliminary 2014 1st quarter data for all identified sites and 2nd quarter

data for Hanford site).

If 2014 monitoring data is timely

certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 CFR

58.15) and EPA's determination of

whether the SJV area meets the PM 2.

5

NAAQS occurs after this date, the

determination would be based on

monitoring data for the 2012-2014

period as this would be the most recent

3-year period for which complete,

quality-assured and certified monitoring

data is available. Because a

determination of attainment requires

that each eligible monitoring site in the

area show a design value at or below the

level of the PM 2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR

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

design value above this level at one

eligible monitor would render

attainment by April 5, 2015 impossible.

In sum, air quality data for the 2003-

2014 period indicate that it is not

practicable for the two Bakersfield

monitoring sites to show a 24-hour

PM 2.

5 NAAQS design value at or below

65 gg/m 3 by April 5, 2015, and that the

SJV area cannot practicably attain the

1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS by this

date. 37

III. Reclassification as Serious

Nonattainment and Applicable

Attainment Dates

Section 188 of the Act outlines the

process for classification of PM 2.

5

nonattainment areas and establishes the

applicable attainment dates. In

accordance with section 188 and in

response to the NRDC decision, EPA

classified the SJV area as Moderate

nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.

5

NAAQS, effective July 2, 2014.38 This

classification rulemaking did not affect

any prior action that EPA had taken

under CAA section 110(k) on a PM 2.5

attainment plan for a nonattainment

area. Accordingly, the April 5, 2015

attainment date that EPA approved on

November 9, 2011 for the SJV area

37 See note 34 supra.

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

remains the applicable attainment date

for the 1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS in this

area. 39

Under the plain meaning of the terms

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

general authority to reclassify at any

time before the applicable attainment

date any area that EPA determines

cannot practicably attain the standard

by such date. Accordingly, section

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

expression of delegated rulemaking

authority. In addition, subparagraphs

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

that EPA reclassify "appropriate" PMo

nonattainment areas at specified time

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

the initial PM10 nonattainment areas,

and within 18 months after the SIP

submittal due date for subsequent

nonattainment areas). These

subparagraphs do not restrict EPA's

general authority but simply specify

that, at a minimum, it must be exercised

at certain times. 40 In accordance with

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

proposing to reclassify the SJV area from

Moderate to Serious nonattainment for

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM 2.

5

standards of 15.0 and 65 gg/m 3 ,

respectively, based on EPA's

determination that the SJV area cannot

practicably attain these standards by the

applicable attainment date of April 5,

2015.

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

attainment date for a Serious area "shall

be as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than the end of the tenth calendar

year beginning after the area's

designation as nonattainment . The

SJV area was designated nonattainment

for the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards effective

April 5, 2005. 4 1 Therefore, upon final

reclassification of the SJV area as a

39 See notes 17 and 18, supra.

40 For a general discussion of EPA's interpretation

of the reclassification provisions in section

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

FR 13498 at 13537-38 (April 16, 1992). 4 1

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

Serious nonattainment area, the latest

permissible attainment date under

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

of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in this area,

will be December 31, 2015.

Under section 188(e) of the Act, a

state may apply to EPA for a single

extension of the Serious area attainment

date by up to 5 years, which EPA may

grant if the State satisfies certain

conditions. Before EPA may extend the

attainment date for a Serious area under

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

for an extension of the attainment date

beyond the statutory attainment date; (2)

demonstrate that attainment by the

statutory attainment date is

impracticable; (3) have complied with

all requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the

implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to

the satisfaction of the Administrator that

the plan for the area includes the most

stringent measures that are included in

the implementation plan of any State or

are achieved in practice in any State,

and can feasibly be implemented in the

area; and (5) submit a demonstration of

attainment by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable.42 As more

fully described in Section V of this

proposal, EPA anticipates that

California may choose to submit a

request for an extension of the Serious

area attainment date consistent with

42 For a discussion of EPA's interpretation of the

requirements of section 188(e), see "State

Implementation Plans for Serious PM 10

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers

for PM 10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;

Addendum to the General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

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

1994) (hereafter "Addendum") at 42002; 65 FR

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

Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252

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

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

2002) (final action on PM10 Plan for Maricopa

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

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

EPA action on PMo Plan for Maricopa County,

Arizona but generally upholding EPA's

interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).

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

these requirements when it submits a

Serious area attainment plan for the

1997 PM 2.5 standards for this area.

IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian

Country 43

Eight Indian tribes are located within

the boundaries of the San Joaquin

Valley PM 2.

5 nonattainment area: the Big

Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria

of Mono Indians of California, the North

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of

California, the Picayune Rancheria of

Chukchansi Indians of California, the

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain

Rancheria of California, the Tejon

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.

We have considered the relevance of

our proposal to reclassify the SJV

nonattainment area as Serious for the

1997 PM 2.5 standards to each tribe

located within the SJV area. We believe

that the same facts and circumstances

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

proposal for Indian country located

within the SJV nonattainment area. EPA

is therefore proposing to exercise our

authority under CAA section 188(b)(1)

to reclassify areas of Indian country

geographically located in the SJV

nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1)

broadly authorizes EPA to reclassify a

nonattainment area-including any area

of Indian country located within such

area-that EPA determines cannot

practicably attain the relevant standard

by the applicable attainment date.

Elevated PM 2.

5 levels are a pervasive

pollution problem throughout the SJV

area. Directly-emitted PM 2.5 and its

precursor pollutants (NOx, SOx, VOC,

and ammonia) are emitted throughout a

nonattainment area and can be

transported throughout that

nonattainment area. Therefore,

boundaries for nonattainment areas are

drawn to encompass both areas with

direct sources of the pollution problem

as well as nearby areas in the same

airshed. Initial classifications of

nonattainment areas are coterminous

with, that is, they match exactly, their

boundaries. EPA believes this approach

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

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

Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the

United States Government, notwithstanding the

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

running through the reservation, (b) all dependent

Indian communities within the borders of the

United States whether within the original or

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and

whether within or without the limits of a state, and

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

have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way

running through the same."

best ensures public health protection

from the adverse effects of PM 2.5

pollution. Therefore, it is generally

counterproductive from an air quality

and planning perspective to have a

disparate classification for an area

located within the boundaries of a larger

nonattainment area, such as the areas of

Indian country contained within the SJV

PM 2.

5 nonattainment area. Moreover,

violations of the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards,

which are measured and modeled

throughout the nonattainment area, as

well as shared meteorological

conditions, would dictate the same

conclusion. Furthermore, emissions

increases in portions of a PM 2.

5

nonattainment area that are left

classified as Moderate could counteract

the effects of efforts to attain the

standards within the overall area

because less stringent requirements

would apply in those Moderate portions

relative to those that would apply in the

portions of the area reclassified to

Serious.

Uniformity of classification

throughout a nonattainment area is thus

a guiding principle and premise when

an area is being reclassified. Equally, if

EPA believes it is likely that a given

nonattainment area will not attain the

PM 2.

5 standards by the applicable

attainment date, then it may be an

additional reason why it is appropriate

to maintain a uniform classification

within the area and thus to reclassify

the Indian country together with the

balance of the nonattainment area. In

this particular case, we are proposing to

determine, based on the State's

demonstration and current ambient air

quality trends, that the SJV

nonattainment area in its entirety

cannot practicably attain the 1997 PM 2.

5

standards by the applicable area

attainment date of April 5, 2015.

In light of the considerations outlined

above that support retention of a

uniformly-classified PM 2.

5

nonattainment area, and our finding that

is impracticable for the area to attain by

the applicable attainment date, we

propose to reclassify the areas of Indian

country areas within the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area as Serious for

the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards.

The effect of reclassification would be

to lower the applicable "major source"

emissions threshold for purposes of the

nonattainment new source review

program and the Title V operating

permit program from its current level of

100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections

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

more new or modified stationary

sources to these requirements. The

reclassification may also lower the de

minimis threshold under the CAA's

General Conformity requirements (40

CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to

70 tpy. Under the General Conformity

requirements, Federal agencies bear the

responsibility of determining

conformity of actions in nonattainment

and maintenance areas that require

Federal permits, approvals, or funding.

Such permits, approvals or funding by

Federal agencies for projects in these

areas of Indian country may be more

difficult to obtain because of the lower

de minimis thresholds.

Given the potential implications of

the reclassification, EPA has contacted

tribal officials to invite government-togovernment consultation on this

rulemaking effort.44 EPA specifically

solicits additional comment on this

proposed rule from tribal officials. We

note that although eligible tribes may

opt to seek EPA approval of relevant

tribal programs under the CAA, none of

the affected tribes will be required to

submit an implementation plan to

address this reclassification.

V. PM 2.

5 Serious Area SIP

Requirements

Upon reclassification as a Serious

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, California will be required to

submit additional SIP revisions to

satisfy the statutory requirements that

apply to Serious areas, including the

requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title

I of the Act.

The Serious area SIP elements that

California will be required to submit are

as follows:

1. Provisions to assure that the best

available control measures (BACM),

including best available control

technology (BACT) for stationary

sources, for the control of direct PM2.5

and PM 2.5 precursors shall be

implemented no later than 4 years after

the area is reclassified (CAA section

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

2. a demonstration (including air

quality modeling) that the plan provides

for attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December

31, 2015, or where the State is seeking

an extension of the attainment date

under section 188(e), a demonstration

that attainment by December 31, 2015 is

impracticable and that the plan provides

for attainment by the most expeditious

44 We sent letters to tribal officials of seven tribes

regarding government-to-government consultation

on September 30, 2014. EPA inadvertently did not

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe, therefore,

concurrently with this proposed action, EPA is

sending a letter to the chairperson of the Tejon

Indian Tribe inviting consultation on our proposed

reclassification of the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area.

All eight letters can be found in the docket for this

proposed action.

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

alternative date practicable (CAA

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

3. plan provisions that require

reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA

section 172(c)(2));

4. quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years until the

area is redesignated attainment and

which demonstrate RFP toward

attainment by the applicable date (CAA

section 189(c));

5. provisions to assure that control

requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM 2.5 also apply to

major stationary sources of PM 2.

5

precursors, except where the State

demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that

such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed

the standard in the area (CAA section

189(e));

6. a comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of PM 2.

5 and PM 2.5 precursors in

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

7. contingency measures to be

implemented if the area fails to meet

RFP or to attain by the applicable

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

and

8. a revision to the nonattainment

new source review (NSR) program to

lower the applicable "major stationary

source" 45 thresholds from 100 tons per

year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section

189(b)(3)).

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

part, that the State must submit the

required BACM provisions "no later

than 18 months after reclassification of

the area as a Serious Area" and must

submit the required attainment

demonstration "no later than 4 years

after reclassification of the area to

Serious." Thus, if a final reclassification

of the area to Serious becomes effective

in early 2015, the Act provides the State

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

until late 2016) to submit a BACM

demonstration and up to 4 years after

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

a Serious area attainment

demonstration. Given the December 31,

2015 Serious area attainment date for

the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards in this area

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

EPA expects the State to adopt and

submit a Serious area plan for the 1997

PM 2.

5 standards well before the statutory

SIP submittal deadlines in section

189(b)(2).

Additionally, in light of the available

ambient air quality data and the short

amount of time available before the

45 For any Serious area, the terms "major source"

and "major stationary source" include any

stationary source that emits or has the potential to

emit at least 70 tons per year of PM 10 (CAA section

189(b)(3)).

December 31, 2015 attainment date

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

anticipates that California may choose

to submit a request for an extension of

the Serious area attainment date

pursuant to section 188(e)

simultaneously with its submittal of a

Serious area plan for the area. If

California fails to submit a request for

an extension of the Serious area

attainment date that satisfies the

requirements of section 188(e) and the

SJV area fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards by December 31, 2015, under

CAA section 189(d) the State would be

required to submit, within 12 months

after December 31, 2015, plan revisions

which provide for attainment of the

PM 2.5 standards and, from the date of

such submission until attainment, for an

annual reduction in emissions within

the SJV area of not less than 5 percent

of the amount of such emissions as

reported in the most recent inventory

prepared for the area (hereafter "section

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

submits and EPA approves a section

188(e) request for an extension of the

Serious area attainment date prior to the

December 31, 2015 attainment date for

the SJV area, the requirement to submit

a section 189(d) plan would not apply

unless and until the SJV area fails to

attain the 1997 PM 2.

5 standards by the

extended attainment date approved by

EPA under section 188(e).

The Act does not specify a deadline

for the State's submittal of

nonattainment NSR program revisions

to lower the "major stationary source"

threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy)

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

following reclassification of a Moderate

PM 2.

5 nonattainment area as Serious

nonattainment under subpart 4.

Pursuant to EPA's gap-filling authority

in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate

the statutory control requirements in

section 189 of the Act, EPA proposes to

require the State to submit these

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions no

later than 12 months from the effective

date of final reclassification of the SJV

area as Serious nonattainment for the

1997 PM 2.

5 standards. We believe this

timeframe will give the state sufficient

time to make this relatively

straightforward revision to its

nonattainment NSR SIP while assuring

that new or modified major sources

locating in the SJV area will be subject

to the lower statutory major source

thresholds expeditiously. We are

requesting comment on this proposed

12-month timeframe for submission of

the nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.

As noted above, however, if California

intends to seek an extension of the

Serious area attainment date, the State

will need to submit a request that

satisfies the requirements of CAA

section 188(e), including NSR SIP

provisions to implement the major

stationary source threshold in CAA

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

approve such an extension prior to the

December 31, 2015 Serious area

attainment date.

Given the short amount of time

available for California's development of

these SIP submittals, EPA anticipates

that the Serious area attainment

demonstration for the SJV area may rely

to some extent on existing

photochemical modeling analyses

developed for previous PM 2.

5 plan

submittals. EPA commits to work with

the District and CARB as they develop

the necessary technical support for the

Serious area plan and to provide

guidance on the requirements that

California must meet to qualify for an

extension of the Serious area attainment

date under CAA section 188(e).

EPA is currently developing a

proposed rulemaking to provide

guidance to states on the attainment

planning requirements in subparts 1 and

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

to areas designated nonattainment for

PM 2.5. In the interim, EPA encourages

the State to review the General Preamble

and Addendum for guidance on how to

implement these statutory requirements

in the SJV PM 2.

5 nonattainment area.46

VI. Summary of Proposed Action and

Request for Public Comment

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

Act, EPA is proposing to reclassify the

SJV nonattainment area from Moderate

to Serious nonattainment for the 1997

annual and 24-hour PM 2.

5 standards

based on EPA's determination that the

area cannot practicably attain these

NAAQS by the applicable attainment

date of April 5, 2015. This proposed

action is based upon EPA's evaluation

of ambient air quality data for the 2003-

2014 period indicating that it is not

practicable for certain monitoring sites

within the SJV to show PM 2.

5 design

values at or below the level of the 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015. Upon

reclassification as a Serious

nonattainment area, California will be

required to submit a Serious area plan

that satisfies the requirements of part D

of title I of the Act, including a

demonstration that the plan provides for

attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-

hour PM 2.

5 standards in the SJV area by

the applicable attainment date, which is

46 See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR

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

41998 (August 16, 1994).

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

no later than December 31, 2015, or by

the most expeditious alternative date

practicable and no later than December

31, 2020, consistent with the

requirements of CAA sections 189(b)

and 188(e).

In addition, because EPA is proposing

to similarly reclassify areas of Indian

country within the SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area as Serious

nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.

5

standards, consistent with our proposed

reclassification of the surrounding nonIndian country lands, EPA has invited

consultation with interested tribes

concerning this issue. We note that

although eligible tribes may seek EPA

approval of relevant tribal programs

under the CAA, none of the affected

tribes will be required to submit an

implementation plan to address this

reclassification.

EPA is requesting public comment on

this proposed action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Additional information about these

statutes and Executive Orders can be

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review, and Executive

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and

Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant

regulatory action under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and Executive Order

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

and therefore was not submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review. Reclassification does

not itself create any new requirements,

and does not impose a materially

adverse impact under Executive Order

12866. With respect to lands under state

jurisdiction, this proposed

reclassification would trigger statutory

deadlines for the state to submit Serious

area plan elements. With respect to

Indian country, reclassifications do not

establish deadlines for air quality plans

or plan revisions because tribes are not

subject to implementation plan

submittal deadlines that apply to states

as a result of reclassifications.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) because it

does not contain any information

collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this action will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This action

will not impose any requirements on

small entities. The proposed rule would

require the state to adopt and submit

SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory

requirements that apply to Serious

areas, and would not itself directly

regulate any small entities. We continue

to be interested in the potential impacts

of the proposed rule on small entities

and welcome comments on issues

related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain any

unfunded mandate of $100 million or

more and does not significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-

1538). This action itself imposes no

enforceable duty on any state, local, or

tribal governments, or the private sector.

The proposed action would reclassify

the SJV nonattainment area as Serious

nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2 .

5

NAAQS, which would trigger existing

statutory timeframes for the state to

submit SIP revisions. Such a

reclassification in and of itself does not

impose any federal intergovernmental

mandate. The proposed action would

not require any tribes to submit

implementation plans.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the states, on the

relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). The requirement to

submit SIP revisions to meet the 1997

PM 2.

5 NAAQS is imposed by the CAA.

This proposed rule does not alter the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the CAA.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not

apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and state and local governments, EPA

specifically solicits comments on this

proposed action from state and local

officials.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." "Policies that have Tribal

implications" is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian Tribes."

Eight Indian tribes are located within

the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment

area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS: The Big

Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of

California, the Cold Springs Rancheria

of Mono Indians of California, the North

Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of

California, the Picayune Rancheria of

Chukchansi Indians of California, the

Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi

Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain

Rancheria of California, the Tejon

Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.

EPA has concluded that this proposed

rule might have tribal implications for

the purposes of Executive Order 13175,

but that it would not impose substantial

direct compliance costs upon the tribes,

nor would it preempt tribal law. We

note that none of the tribes located in

the SJV nonattainment area has

requested eligibility to administer

programs under the Clean Air Act. The

proposed rule would affect EPA's

implementation of the new source

review program because of the lower

"major source" threshold triggered by

reclassification (70 tons per year for

direct PM 2.

5 and precursors to PM 2.5).

The proposed rule may also affect new

or modified stationary sources proposed

in these areas that require Federal

permits, approvals, or funding. Such

projects are subject to the requirements

of EPA's General Conformity rule, and

Federal permits, approvals, or funding

for the projects may be more difficult to

obtain because of the lower de minimis

thresholds triggered by reclassification.

Given these potential implications,

EPA contacted tribal officials during the

process of developing this proposed rule

to provide an opportunity for the tribes

to have meaningful and timely input

into its development. On September 30,

2014, we sent letters to leaders of the

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

seven tribes with areas of Indian

country in the SJV nonattainment area

inviting government-to-government

consultation on the rulemaking effort.

We requested that the tribal leaders, or

their designated consultation

representatives, provide input or request

government-to-government consultation

by October 27, 2014. We did not receive

a response from any of the tribes. As

noted above, EPA inadvertently did not

send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe

prior to this proposed action. We

recognize that the proposed

reclassification may be of interest to

officials of the Tejon Indian Tribe and

we are contacting them presently to

offer them an opportunity for

government-to-government

consultation. We intend to continue

communicating with all eight tribes

located within the boundaries of the SJV

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS as we move forward developing

a final rule. EPA specifically solicits

additional comment on this proposed

rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as

applying only to those regulatory

actions that concern environmental

health or safety risks that EPA has

reason to believe may

disproportionately affect children, per

the definition of "covered regulatory

action" in section 2-202 of the

Executive Order. This proposed action

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it proposes only to reclassify

the SJV nonattainment area as Serious

nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.

5

NAAQS, which would trigger additional

Serious area planning requirements

under the CAA. This proposed action

does not establish an environmental

standard intended to mitigate health or

safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13211, "Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001) because it is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

This action is not subject to the

requirements of Section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) because it does not involve

technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Population

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal

executive policy on environmental

justice. Its main provision directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this action

will not have disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or

low-income populations because it does

not affect the level of protection

provided to human health or the

environment. This proposed action

would only reclassify the SJV

nonattainment area as Serious

nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5

NAAQS, which would trigger additional

Serious area planning requirements

under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, Incorporation

by reference.

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

Dated: December 18, 2014.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

[FR Doe. 2015-00309 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0038;

4500030113]

RIN 1018-BA13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Endangered

Status for 21 Species and Proposed

Threatened Status for 2 Species in

Guam and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period and notice of

public hearings.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), recently

published a proposed listing for 21

plant and animal species from the

Mariana Islands (U.S. Territory of Guam

and the U.S. Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands) as

endangered species and 2 plant species

from the Mariana Islands as threatened

species under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and

announced a 60-day public comment

period on the proposed actions, ending

December 1, 2014. We now reopen the

public comment period for an

additional 30 days, and announce two

public hearings and four public

information meetings on our proposed

rule. We are taking these actions to

allow all interested parties additional

time and opportunity to comment on

the proposed rule.

DATES: Written Comments: We will

consider comments received or

postmarked on or before February 11,

2015, or provided at the public hearings.

Please note comments submitted

electronically using the Federal

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES)

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

Time on the closing date. Any

comments that we receive after the

closing date may not be considered in

the final decision on the proposed rule.

Public Hearings and Information

Meetings:

Public hearings Public information meetings

1491

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