# + 2

(,1 1/,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final rule willbe withdrawn and all public comments received willbe addressed in a subsequent final rule based onthis proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period

on this action. Anyparties interested in commenting on this action should do so atthis time. Please note that ifEPA receives adverse comment on part ofthe rule and ifthat part can be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts ofthe 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 ofthis Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 19, 2014. Karl Brooks, RegionalAdministrator, 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

m1.The authority citation for part52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart Q-Iowa

* 2.In §52.820, the table inparagraph (c) is amended byrevising the entry for "CHAPTER V" to read as follows:
§52.820 Identificationof 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 forthe 1997 PM2.5 Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to reclassify the SanJoaquin 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 willbe required to submit a Serious area plan including a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment ofthe 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, orby the most expeditious alternative date practicable, in accordance with the requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe 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 ofthe following methods: * Federale-RulemakingPortal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. * Email:lee.anita@epa.gov. * Mailordelivery: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 maybe 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.govor 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 ofyour comment. Ifyou send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public
comment. IfEPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment.

Docket:The index to the docket (docketnumber EPA-R09-OAR-2014- 0813) for this proposed ruleis available electronically on the 

### 1482

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

www.regulations.govWeb site andin hard copy atEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,

some information maybe 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 ofContents

I. Background for Proposed Action II. Evaluation ofAmbient PM2.5Air Quality Monitoring Data III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable Attainment Dates IV. Reclassification ofAreas ofIndian Country V. PM2. 5 Serious Area SIP Requirements VI. Summary ofProposed Action and Request for Public Comment VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background forProposed Action

On July 18, 1997, EPA established

new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2. 5, particulate matter with a diameter of2.5 microns or less, including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (gtg/m 3)based on a 3-year average ofannual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 jtg/

m 3based 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 PM2. 5 concentrations above the levels ofthese 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 PM2. 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 PM2 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 PM2.5NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5standard of65 pg/m 3 and annual standard of 15.0 pg/m 3as 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 PM 2 .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 PM 2 .5 or direct PM2 . 5) or canbe formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions from precursor emissions ofnitrogen 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 SanJoaquin Valley (SJV)

area as nonattainment forboth 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

2SeeEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P99/002bF, October 2004.

3See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). 4See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 5Id. 6See 40 CFR 81.305. 7Fora precise description ofthe geographic boundaries ofthe San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. for developing plans to provide for attainment ofthe 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 ofthe SJV PM 2. 5 SIP except for the contingency measures, which EPA disapproved. 9 As part ofthis action and pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), EPA granted California's request for an extension ofthe 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 inMay
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 oftitle I ofthe CAA. The court reasoned that the plain meaning ofthe CAA requires

8 See 76 FR 69896 atn. 2 (November 9, 2011).
*See id. at 69924. 10See id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment date for a nonattainment area is "the dateby which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, butno 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 ofdesignation

as nonattainment, considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. CAA section 172(a)(2)(A); see also40 CFR 51.1004(a) and (b).

11See 72 FR 20583 (April25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. This rulewas premised

on EPA's prior interpretation of the Act as allowing for implementation of the PM 2 .5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the general nonattainment area provisions ofsubpart 1 and not the more specific provisions for particulate matter nonattainment

areas in subpart 4 ofpartD, titleI ofthe Act.

12See 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
13See Natural ResourcesDefense Councilv.EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cih. 2013). 1483

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

implementation ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards under subpart 4 because PM2.5 particles fall within the statutory definition ofPM10 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 NRDCdecision,

on June 2, 2014, EPA published a final rule classifying all areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as Moderate under subpart 4.15 EPA also established a deadline ofDecember 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) ofthe Act on a SIP for aPM 2. 5 nonattainment area.' 7 Accordingly, EPA's previous approval ofthe April 5, 2015 attainment date for the SJV area remains in effect.18

Under section 188(b)(1) ofthe CAA, prior to an area's attainment date, EPA has discretionary authority to reclassify

as a Serious nonattainment area "any

area that the Administrator determines cannot practicably attain" the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date. 19 On September 25, 2014, the District requested that EPA reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2. 5 standards. This request included

a demonstration that the SJV cannot practicably attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by the April 5, 2015 attainment date. 20

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM2. 5 Air Quality Monitoring Data

A determination ofwhether 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 oftheir 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 PM 2 .5 standard is met when the "annual PM2 . 5 NAAQS design value" (based on the 3- year average ofPM 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 designvalue" (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 Trendsin theSJV

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. 25Higher PM 2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between late November and February, when the SJV experiences extended periods ofstagnant 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: Plan z .................................................. C A Ave ............................................... Golden State Hwy

.............................. Corcoran .................................................... Hanford

...................................................... Visalia

........................................................ Fresno: Pacific

................................................. Garland

.............................................. Clovis

......................................................... Tranquility

.................................................. M

ad

era ...................................................... Merced: M Stree t

............................................. Co

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

14Id. 15See 79 FR 31566 (June2, 2014).
16Id.

'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 NRDCdoes not compel, our final action

on the SJV PM2.5SIPremains effective...").

19Section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act is a general expression ofdelegated rulemaking authority. See "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title Iofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (hereafter "General Preamble") at 13537, n. 15. Although subparagraphs (A) and (B) ofsection 188(b)(1) mandate that EPA reclassify by specified timeframes any areas that it determines appropriate for reclassification by those dates, these subparagraphs do notrestrict the general authority but simply specify that, at a minimum, EPA's authority mustbe 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 ofthe San Joaquin Valley as a Serious PM2.5Nonattainment 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 theExceptional Weather Conditions Caused by the Recent Drought" (hereafter "Sadredin Memo"). 21See 40 CFR 50.7; 40 CFR part 50,appendix L;
40 CFR part 50,appendix N; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58; and 40 CFRpart 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.

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

23See id.

24See U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports,
PM2.5DetailedInformation 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 at41339 (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/m 3 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 onthe 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 2.5NAAQS is attained when the designvalue 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 2.5concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. For example, the 24-hour PM 2.5NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the 98th percentile PM 2.5concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 24-hour PM 2.5NAAQS 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

Attainingthe 1997 Annual PM2.5 StandardbyApril 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 byApril 5, 2015.26 Specifically, the District provided annual average PM 2 .5 concentrations recorded at monitoring sites inthe 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 .5concentration 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 orbelow 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 byApril 5, 2015.

EPA also independently evaluated preliminary 2014 PM2 . 5 air quality data available in AQS as ofAugust 2014 to

2840 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.4. 29See Sadredin Memo at Table4. 30Id. 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 ofthese monitoring sites, EPA calculated the maximum 2014 average PM 2 .5 concentration that would enable the site

to show a 2014 annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value at orbelow 15.0 gg/m3.32

31See Memorandum from Elfego Felix and Scott Bohning to Docket entitled "Practicability ofSJV 2014 attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS" dated December 10, 2014 with attachment entitled "SJV PM2 5 1997 std impracticable 2014-12-10.xlsx" (hereafter "Felix and Bohning Memo").

32

The small differences between the District's and EPA's calculations of "maximum 2014" values

are due to the use ofdifferent rounding conventions. EPA's calculations ofmaximum 2014 values arebased on therounding 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 3is 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 PM2.5 concentration atthe Visalia, Corcoran, and Hanford sites would have to be nearly 20 percent lower than the lowest annual averages observed at each ofthose sites during the 2003-2013 period, and the 2014 annual average PM 2 .5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site would have to be nearly 50 percent lower thanthe 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 2014a allowed to (year) b lowest attain b average recorded annual
verage

Bakersfield- Planz

........................................................................... 29.7 7.7 14.5 (2011) 47 Visalia

.............................................................................................. 27.9 11.4 1 3.6 (201 0) 1 6 Corcoran

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

anford

............................................................................................ 18.7 12.1 14.8 (2012) 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).

bSee Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment.

If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (see40 CFR 58.15) and EPA's determination of whether the SJV area meets the PM2. 5 NAAQS occurs after this date, the determination would be based on monitoring data for the 2012-2014 period as this wouldbe 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 inthe

area show a design value at orbelow the level ofthe PM2.5 NAAQS (see40 CFR part 50, §50.7 and appendix N), a 2014 design value above this level at one eligible monitor would render attainment by April 5,2015 impossible.

In sum, air quality data for the 2003- 2014 period indicate that it is not practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an annual PM2. 5 NAAQS design value at orbelow 15.0 gtg/m 3by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV

annual mean concentrations, EPA did notround 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 bebased on the facts and circumstances ofthe 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

Attainingthe 1997 24-HourPM 2.

5 StandardbyApril 5, 2015

The District's September 25, 2014 letter did not specifically address the SJV area's ability to attain the 24-hour PM2. 5 standard byApril 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., atthe Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site. 35
Based on these observed 98th percentile values in 2012 and 2013, EPA calculated for each ofthese monitoring

additional control measures could be implemented in time and reduce emissions adequately to attain the NAAQS. Given the significant reductions in ambient PM2.5levels 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 thereasons for the high
PM 2.5concentrations observed in the winter of 2013-2014. See Sadredin Memo at 3-7.

36 Identification ofthe 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration is based on the number ofcreditable 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 orbelow 65 gtg/m 3

. EPA also calculated a low estimate ofthe 98th percentile 24-hour concentration for 2014 at each ofthese 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 forthe remainder ofthe year at each monitoring site. 36 As shown in Table 4, EPA's low estimates ofthe 98th percentile concentrations for 2014 at the
two monitoring sites in Bakersfield (Planz and California Avenue) already exceed the maximum 2014values that would enable these two sites to show a 24-hour PM 2. 5 NAAQS design value for 2014 at orbelow 65 gg/m 3

. Thus, these
two monitoring sites in Bakersfield
cannot practicably show a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value at orbelow 65 jag/

m 3by April 5, 2015.

appendix N, section 4.5. Specifically, in anyyear for which there are at least 351 creditable samples, the 98th percentile is the 8th highest concentration, and as the number ofcreditable samples decreases the 98th percentile concentration increases. See id.
at Table 1. To calculate a low estimate ofthe 98th percentile 24-hour concentration for 2014 at each monitoring site, EPA assumed conservatively that preliminary 2014 monitoring data available inAQS (see Table4) represented the highest values for 2014 (i.e., no higher values would berecorded at these sites for the remainder of2014) and that the total number ofcreditable samples in 2014 would be consistent with the sampling frequency observed

as ofAugust 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/m 3) 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

Bakersfield- Planz

........................................................................................... 40 .6 96 .7 64.4 58.9 Bakersfield- CA Ave

....................................................................................... 56 .4 71.8 72.6 68.0 Hanford

.................................................................................................... ....... 48.3 67.6 76.7 80.3 Fresno- Pacific

................................................................................................ 51.3 71.6 61.8 73.3 Fresno- Garland

............................................................................................. 52 .6 63 .8 65.5 79.8

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

If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (see40 CFR 58.15) and EPA's determination of whether the SJV area meets the PM2. 5 NAAQS occurs after this date, the determination would be based on monitoring data for the 2012-2014 period as this wouldbe 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 inthe

area show a design value at orbelow the level ofthe PM2.5 NAAQS (see40 CFR part 50, §50.7 and appendix N), a 2014 design value above this level at one eligible monitor would render attainment by April 5,2015 impossible.

In sum, air quality data for the 2003- 2014 period indicate that it is not practicable for the two Bakersfield monitoring sites to show a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value at orbelow 65 gg/m 3 by April 5, 2015, and thatthe SJV area cannot practicably attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS bythis date. 37

III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment andApplicable Attainment Dates

Section 188 ofthe Act outlines the process for classification ofPM2. 5 nonattainment areas and establishes the applicable attainment dates. In accordance with section 188 and in response to theNRDC decision, EPA classified the SJV area as Moderate nonattainment for the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS, effective July 2,2014.38 This classification rulemaking did not affect any prior action thatEPA hadtaken under CAA section 110(k) on a PM2.5 attainment plan for a nonattainment

area. Accordingly, the April 5, 2015 attainment date that EPA approved on November 9, 2011 for the SJV area

37See 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 ofthe terms of section 188(b)(1) ofthe 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) ofthe Act is a general expression ofdelegated 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 mustbe exercised at certain times. 4 0 In accordance with section 188(b)(1) ofthe 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 ofApril 5, 2015.

Under section 188(c)(2) ofthe Act, the attainment date for a Serious area "shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end ofthe 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 1Therefore, upon final reclassification ofthe SJV area as a

39 See notes 17 and 18, supra. 40For a general discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe reclassification provisions in section 188(b)(1) ofthe 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) ofthe Act, forpurposes ofthe 1997 PM 2.5 standards in this area, will be December 31, 2015.

Under section 188(e) ofthe Act, a state may apply to EPA for a single extension ofthe Serious area attainment date by up to 5years, which EPA may grant ifthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthis proposal, EPA anticipates that California may choose to submit a request for an extension ofthe Serious

area attainment date consistent with

42Fora discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe requirements of section 188(e), see "State Implementation Plans for Serious PM 10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment DateWaivers for PM 10Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamblefor the Implementation of Title I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 59 FR41998 (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 Vigilv. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding EPA action on PMo Plan forMaricopa 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 PM2.5 standards for this area.
IV. Reclassification of Areas ofIndian Country 43

Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries ofthe San Joaquin Valley PM2. 5 nonattainment area: the Big Sandy Rancheria ofMono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia, the North Fork Rancheria ofMono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria ofthe Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria ofCalifornia, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe ofthe Tule River Reservation.

We have considered the relevance of

our proposal to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious for the 1997 PM2.5 standards to each tribe located within the SJV area. We believe that the same facts and circumstances that support the proposal for the nonIndian country lands also support the proposal for Indian country located within the SJV nonattainment area. EPA is therefore proposing to exercise our authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) to reclassify areas ofIndian country geographically located in the SJV nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) broadly authorizes EPA to reclassify a nonattainment area-including any area ofIndian country located within such area-that EPA determines cannot practicably attain the relevant standard by the applicable attainment date.

Elevated PM2. 5 levels are a pervasive pollution problem throughout the SJV

area. Directly-emitted PM2.5and 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 ofthe pollution problem

as well as nearby areas inthe 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 thejurisdiction ofthe United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance ofanypatent, and, includingrights-of-way running through the reservation, (b)all dependent Indian communities within the borders ofthe United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within orwithout the limits ofa 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 ofPM 2.5 pollution. Therefore, itis generally counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to have a disparate classification for an area located within the boundaries ofa larger nonattainment area, such as the areas of Indian country contained within the SJV PM2. 5 nonattainment area. Moreover, violations ofthe 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 ofa PM 2. 5 nonattainment area that are left classified as Moderate could counteract the effects ofefforts 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 ofthe area reclassified to Serious.

Uniformity ofclassification throughout a nonattainment area is thus

a guiding principle and premise when

an area isbeing reclassified. Equally, if EPA believes itis likely that a given nonattainment area will not attain the PM2. 5 standards bythe applicable attainment date, thenit may be an additional reason why itis appropriate to maintain a uniform classification within the area and thus to reclassify the Indian country together with the balance ofthe 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 ofthe considerations outlined above that support retention ofa 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 ofIndian country areas within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area as Serious for the 1997 PM 2. 5 standards. The effect ofreclassification would be to lower the applicable "major source" emissions threshold for purposes ofthe 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 minimisthreshold under the CAA's General Conformity requirements (40 CFR part 93, subpart B) from 100 tpyto 70 tpy. Under the General Conformity requirements, Federal agencies bear the responsibility ofdetermining 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 ofIndian country may be more difficult to obtain because ofthe lower de minimisthresholds.

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 optto seek EPA approval ofrelevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan to address this reclassification.
V. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements

Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, California will be required to submit additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 ofpart D, title I ofthe 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 ofdirect PM2.5 and PM 2.5precursors shallbe 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 ofthe 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 letterto the Tejon Indian Tribe, therefore, concurrently with this proposed action,EPA is sending a letterto the chairperson ofthe Tejon Indian Tribe inviting consultation on ourproposed reclassification ofthe SJV PM2.5nonattainment area. All eight letters can be foundin 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 ofPM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the State demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));

6. a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources ofPM2. 5 and PM2.5precursors in the area (CAA section 172(c)(3)); 7. contingency measures to be implemented ifthe area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and

8. arevision 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 submitthe required BACM provisions "no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area" andmust submitthe required attainment demonstration "no later than 4 years after reclassification ofthe area to Serious." Thus, ifa final reclassification ofthe area to Serious becomes effective in early 2015, the Act provides the State with up to 18 months after this date (i.e., until late 2016) to submit a BACM demonstration and up to 4 years after this date (i.e.,until early 2019) to submit

a Serious area attainment demonstration. Given the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2. 5 standards in this area under CAA section 188(c)(2), however, EPA expects the State to adopt and submit a Serious area plan for the 1997 PM2.5 standards well before the statutory SIP submittal deadlines in section 189(b)(2).

Additionally, in light ofthe available ambient air quality data and the short amount oftime available before the

45

Forany Serious area, the terms "major source" and "major stationary source" include any stationary source that emits orhas the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year ofPM 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 ofa Serious area plan for the area. If California fails to submit a request for

an extension ofthe 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 ofthe PM2.5standards and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in emissions within the SJV area ofnot less than 5 percent ofthe 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 ofthe 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 bythe extended attainment date approved by EPA under section 188(e).

The Act does not specify a deadline for the State's submittal of nonattainment NSR program revisions to lower the "major stationary source" threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) following reclassification of a Moderate PM2. 5 nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment under subpart 4. Pursuant to EPA's gap-filling authority in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate the statutory control requirements in section 189 ofthe 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 ofthe 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, ifCalifornia intends to seek an extension ofthe Serious area attainment date, the State will need to submit a request that satisfies the requirements ofCAA 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 oftime 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 ofthe 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 ofpart D, title I ofthe 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 ofProposed Action and Request forPublic Comment

Pursuant to section 188(b)(1) ofthe 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 ofApril 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 ofthe 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015. Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area, California willbe required to submit a Serious area plan that satisfies the requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Act, including a demonstration that the planprovides for attainment ofthe 1997 annual and 24- hour PM 2. 5 standards in the SJV area by the applicable attainment date, which is

46 Seegenerallythe General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) andAddendum, 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, orby 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 isproposing
to similarly reclassify areas ofIndian country within the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2. 5 standards, consistent with our proposed reclassification ofthe surrounding nonIndian country lands, EPA has invited consultation with interested tribes concerning this issue. We note that although eligible tribes may seek EPA approval ofrelevant tribal programs under the CAA, none ofthe affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan to address this reclassification.

EPA isrequesting public comment on this proposed action.

VII. Statutoryand 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 Order12866:Regulatory Planning andReview, andExecutive Order13563:ImprovingRegulationand RegulatoryReview

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 ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review. Reclassification does not itselfcreate 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. Withrespect 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 ofreclassifications.

B. Paperwork ReductionAct

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) because it does not contain any information collection activities. C.RegulatoryFlexibility 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), 5U.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 itselfdirectly regulate any small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts ofthe proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

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) (2U.S.C. 1531- 1538). This action itselfimposes 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 itselfdoes not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. The proposed action would not require any tribes to submit implementation plans.

E.Executive Order13132:Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It willnot have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999). The requirement to submit SIP revisions to meet the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS is imposed by the CAA. This proposed rule does not alter the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit ofExecutive 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 Order13175, Consultation andCoordinationWith 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 inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave 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 ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes."

Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries ofthe SJV nonattainment

area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS: The Big Sandy Rancheria ofMono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia, the North Fork Rancheria ofMono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria ofthe Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria ofCalifornia, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe ofthe Tule River Reservation.

EPA has concluded that this proposed rule might have tribal implications for the purposes ofExecutive Order 13175, but that it would not impose substantial direct compliance costs upon the tribes,

nor would itpreempt tribal law.We
note that none ofthe 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 ofthe new source review program because ofthe lower "major source" threshold triggered by reclassification (70 tons per yearfor 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 ofEPA's General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, approvals, or funding for the projects maybe more difficult to obtain because ofthe lower deminimis thresholds triggered by reclassification.

Given these potential implications, EPA contacted tribal officials during the process ofdeveloping this proposed rule to provide an opportunity forthe tribes
to have meaningful and timely input into its development. On September 30, 2014, we sent letters to leaders ofthe 

### 1490

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

seven tribes with areas ofIndian 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

aresponse from any ofthe 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 ofthe TejonIndian Tribe and

we are contacting them presently to offer them an opportunity for government-to-government consultation. We intend to continue communicating with all eighttribes located within the boundaries ofthe SJV nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as we move forward developing

afinal rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G.

Executive Order13045, Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafetyRisks

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 thatEPA has

reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of "covered regulatory action" in section 2-202 ofthe Executive Order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it proposes only to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS, which would trigger additional Serious area planning requirements under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H.Executive Order 13211,Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, 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 itis not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

This action is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards.

J.

Executive Order12898:Federal Actions To AddressEnvironmental JusticeinMinorityPopulations 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 oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheir programs, policies, and activities onminority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined thatthis 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 ofprotection provided to human health orthe environment. This proposed action would onlyreclassify 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 CFRPart81

Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 18, 2014.
JaredBlumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, EPARegion9.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and WildlifeService

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 aproposed listing for 21 plant and animal species from the Mariana Islands (U.S. Territory ofGuam and the U.S. Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands) as endangered species and 2plant 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 nowreopen 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, orprovided 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 onthe proposed rule.

PublicHearingsandInformation Meetings:

Public hearings Public information meetings 

### 1491

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