The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, signed this proposed rule on 12/18/14, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website ( http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action ) and on Regulations.gov ( http://www.regulations.gov ) in Docket No. EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2014

‐ 0813. Once the official version of this document is published in the FR, this version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version.



# 6560-50-P

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 81**

**[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0813; FRL- ]**
**Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;**
**California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious**

**Nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5**  

# 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 PM 2.5 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 2 

# DATES: Comments must arrive by **[insert date 30 days after**
**publication in the Federal Register]**

.

**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.

 E-mail: 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 e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov website 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
e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public
comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technicalThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 3 

# 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
www.regulations.gov website 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 PM 2.5 

# Air Quality Monitoring Data
III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable

Attainment Dates
IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian CountryThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 4 

# V. PM 2.5 

# 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 ( μ g/m 3 

# ) based on a 3-year average

of annual mean PM 2.5 

# concentrations, and a 24-hour (daily)

standard of 65 μ g/m 3 

# based on a 3-year average of 98 th 

# percentile

24-hour PM 2.5 

# concentrations. 1 

# EPA established these standards
after considering substantial evidence from numerous health
studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to PM 2.5 

# concentrations above the levels of these

standards.

1 

# See 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 μ g/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 μg/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 μ g/m 3 

# and annual standard of 15.0 μ g/m 3 

# as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 5 

# Epidemiological studies have shown statistically
significant correlations 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



# PM 2.5 

# can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid
or liquid particle (primary PM 2.5 

# or direct PM 2.5 

# ) 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

2 

# See EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/ P–99/002bF, October 2004.
3 

# See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 6 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# standard (15.0 μg/m 3 

# )

and the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 

# standard (65 μg/m 3 

# ). 6



# The SJV PM 2.5 

# nonattainment area encompasses over 23,000
square miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and
the valley portion of Kern. 7 

# The area is home to 4 million people
and is the nation’s leading agricultural region. Stretching over
250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is
partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to
the east. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD or District) has primary responsibility for
developing plans to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in this
area. The District works cooperatively with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in preparing these plans.

4 

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

# Id

. 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 7 

# 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”). 11 

# In July

8 

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

# 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 PM 2.5 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 8 

# 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. 13 

# 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 (PM 10 

# )
in subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA. The court reasoned
that the plain meaning of the CAA requires implementation of the

1997 PM 2.5 

# standards under subpart 4 because PM 2.5 

# particles fall
within the statutory definition of PM 10 

# and are thus subject to
the same statutory requirements as PM 10 

# . 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

12 

# See 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
13 

# See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
14 

# Id.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 9 

# as Moderate under subpart 4. 15 

# EPA also established a deadline of
December 31, 2014 for states to submit attainment-related 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. 17


# Accordingly, EPA’s previous approval of the April 5, 2015

attainment date for the SJV area remains in effect. 18


# Under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, prior to an area’s
attainment date, EPA has discretionary authority to reclassify
as a Serious nonattainment area “any area that the Administrator
determines cannot practicably attain” the PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by the
applicable Moderate area attainment date. 19 

# On September 25,
2014, the District requested that EPA reclassify the SJV

15 

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

# Id.
17 

# Id. at 31569.
18 

# Id.; see also 79 FR 29327 at 29329 (May 22, 2014)(noting that “[a]bsent an EPA rulemaking to withdraw or revise [the November 9, 2011] final rule, which NRDC does not compel, our final action on the SJV 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

.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 10 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# standard by the
April 5, 2015 attainment date. 20



# II. Evaluation of Ambient PM **2.5** 

# 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.

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 PM 2.5 

# 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”).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 11 

# Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when
determining the attainment status of areas. 21


# Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR section 50.7 and in
accordance with part 50, appendix N, the 1997 annual PM 2.5



# standard is met when the “annual PM 2.5 

# 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 μg/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

98 th 

# percentile 24-hour PM 2.5 

# mass concentrations) 23 

# is less than
or equal to 65 μg/m 3 

# at each eligible monitoring site.

**A. PM 2.5**  

# 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

μ g/m 3 

# (Madera) and 65 μ g/m 3 

# (Bakersfield), respectively, for the
2011–2013 period. 24 

# The levels and composition of ambient PM 2.5 

# in

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, PM 2.5 

# Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html (“PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14”) (hereafter “2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports”). The Bakersfield monitor also recorded the nation’s second highest annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS design value (17.3 μ g/m 3 

# ) during this period. See id

.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 12 

# 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 (NO X 

# ) 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.

25 

# See 76 FR 41338 at 41339 (July 13, 2011) (proposed action on SJV PM 2.5 

# Plan).Thisdocumentisaprepublicationversion,signedbytheRegionalAdministratorofEPARegion9,JaredBlumenfeld,on12/18/14.Wehavetakenstepstoensuretheaccuracyofthisversion,butitisnottheofficialversion.13**Table 1: Annual PM 2.5** **NAAQS Design Values a** **in μg/m 3** **for Monitors in the SJV Site AQS ID** **2 005** **2 006** **2 007** **2 008 2009** **2 010** **2 011** **2 012** **2 013** Bakersfield– Planz 60290016 18.4 18.9 20.3 21.5 22.6 21.2 18.2 15.6 17.3– CA Ave 60290014 18.0 18.5 19.6 20.9 21.0 18.4 16.5 14.5 16.4- GoldenState Hwy60290010 19.0 18.6 19.2 18.8 19.3 n/a n/a n/a n/aCorcoran 60310004 17.0 17.2 17.6 17.0 17.3 17.1 16.2 n/a n/aHanford 60311004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.8 17.0Visalia 61072002 18.0 18.2 19.3 19.7 18.8 16.5 15.2 14.8 16.6Fresno– Pacific 60195025 17.2 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.0 14.9 14.5 13.8 14.7- Garland 60190011 16.9 16.6 17.4 17.7 17.1 15.2 14.5 14.3b15.4bClovis 60195001 17.1 16.4 16.4 16.3 17.0 16.4 17.0 16.0 16.4Tranquility 60192009 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.4 7.8Madera 60392010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 19.0 18.1Merced– M Street 60472510 15.0 14.7 14.7 n/a n/a n/a 11.7 10.4 11.1- Coffee 60470003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 18.2 14.3 13.3Turlock 60990006 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.3 14.9 15.7Modesto 60990005 14.0 14.1 14.6 15.3 14.7n/a n/a12.9 13.6Manteca 60772010 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.2Stockton 60771002 13.1 12.9 12.8 13.5 12.9 12.1 11.1 11.4 13.8Source: 2013 PM2.5Design Value Reports. The term “n/a” means monitoring data is not availableor does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).aThe annual PM2.5NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average ofannual mean PM2.5concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50 appendix N. For example, the annualPM2.5NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the annual mean PM2.5Thisdocumentisaprepublicationversion,signedbytheRegionalAdministratorofEPARegion9,JaredBlumenfeld,on12/18/14.Wehavetakenstepstoensuretheaccuracyofthisversion,butitisnottheofficialversion.14concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 annual PM2.5NAAQS isattained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 15.0 μg/m3or 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 reportedrepresents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Streetsite which ceased operation in early 2012.Thisdocumentisaprepublicationversion,signedbytheRegionalAdministratorofEPARegion9,JaredBlumenfeld,on12/18/14.Wehavetakenstepstoensuretheaccuracyofthisversion,butitisnottheofficialversion.15**Table 2: 24-Hour PM 2.5** **NAAQS Design Values** **a in μg/m** **3 for Monitors in the SJV** **Site AQS ID 2** **005 2** **006 2** **007 2** **008 2009 2** **010 2** **011 2** **012 2** **013**Bakersfield– Planz 60290016 54 60 68 70 70 65 55 47 60– CA Ave 60290014 58 62 66 66 68 62 62 58 65- GoldenState Hwy60290010 60 64 69 64 66 64 n/a n/a n/aCorcoran 60310004 55 58 61 52 53 49 46 43 49Hanford 60311004n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a54 60Visalia 61072002 55 56 58 57 59 51 47 47 56Fresno– Pacific 60195025 57 59 61 52 50 43 48 53 63- Garland 60190011 60 58 63 58 60 54 58 59b62bClovis 60195001 55 56 58 54 53 47 54 54 58Tranquility 60192009n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a31 30Madera 60392010n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a51 52Merced– M Street 60472510 45 45 48 50 51 45 39 40 49- Coffee 60470003n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a43 41 42Turlock 60990006n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a55 51 49 53Modesto 60990005 49 51 55 54 55 49 50 44 51Manteca 60772010n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a38 37Stockton 60771002 40 41 45 51 50 44 38 36 45Source: 2013 PM2.5Design Value Reports. The term “n/a” means monitoring data is not available ordoes not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).aThe 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average ofannual 98thpercentile 24-hour PM2.5concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50 appendix N. Forexample, the 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average ofthe 98thpercentile PM2.5concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997Thisdocumentisaprepublicationversion,signedbytheRegionalAdministratorofEPARegion9,JaredBlumenfeld,on12/18/14.Wehavetakenstepstoensuretheaccuracyofthisversion,butitisnottheofficialversion.1624-hour PM2.5NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 65 μg/m3or 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 reportedrepresents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Streetsite which ceased operation in early 2012.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 17 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# annual standard by April 5, 2015. 26


# Specifically, the District provided annual average PM 2.5 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# concentration of 15.0 μg/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 μg/m 3 

# for 2014
is 7.5 μg/m 3



# . 27 

# The annual average value for a given year is
calculated based on the quarterly averages for that year. 28 

# The
District reported that the average PM 2.5 

# concentration measured
at the Bakersfield-Planz site in the first quarter of 2014,
however, was 29.7 μg/m 3



# . 29 

# Thus, according to the District,

average PM 2.5 

# concentrations at this monitoring site for the

26 

# See Sadredin Memo at 2-6.
27 

# Id. at Table 3.
28 

# 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, section 4.4.
29 

# See Sadredin Memo at Table 4.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 18 

# remaining three quarters of 2014 would have to be zero in order
to result in a design value at or below 15.0 μg/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 PM 2.5 

# concentrations. These preliminary data and
analyses indicate that it is not possible for the BakersfieldPlanz monitoring site to show an annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS design value
at or below 15.0 μg/m 3 

# by April 5, 2015.
EPA also independently evaluated preliminary 2014 PM 2.5 

# air
quality data available in AQS as of August 2014 to assess the
District’s representations. 31 

# Table 3 shows four monitoring
locations for which preliminary 2014 AQS data already indicate
that the 3-year average PM 2.5 

# concentration for 2012-2014 will
likely be well above 15.0 μg/m 3 

# . Specifically, for each of these
monitoring sites, EPA calculated the maximum 2014 average PM 2.5



# concentration that would enable the site to show a 2014 annual

PM 2.5 

# NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 μg/m 3



# . 32 

# As shown in

30 

# Id.
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 lowerThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 19 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# 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 μg/m 3



# . 33



# Table 3: Preliminary Recorded 2014 Annual Average PM **2.5** 

# Concentrations (in μg/m **3** 

# ) for Selected Sites in SJV and **Comparison to Lowest Recorded Concentrations**

Average recorded 2014 a 

# EPA estimate

for Max 2014 Annual Average Allowed to Attain b 

# Lowest Recorded

Annual Average

(year) b 

# Percent Difference between Max 2014 and

Lowest Recorded Annual Average Bakersfield – Planz 29.7 7.7 14.5 (2011) 47%

Visalia 27.9 11.4 13.6 (2010) 16%

Corcoran 22.9 13.0 15.6 (2013) 16%

Hanford 18.7 12.1 14.8 (2012) 18%

than 15.05 μg/m 3 

# is rounded down to 15.0 μg/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 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 20 a 

# Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Combined Site Sample Values Report, PM 2.5 

# , 2014 (Report Date: August 7, 2014) (preliminary 2014 1 st 

# quarter data for all identified sites and 2 nd 

# 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,
section 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
μg/m 3 

# by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV area cannot practicably

attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

# NAAQS by this date. 34

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 theThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 21 

# C. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 24-Hour PM **2.5** 

# 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 98 th 

# percentile 24-hour average PM 2.5 

# concentrations recorded in 2012 and 2013 at selected monitoring

sites. The 98 th 

# 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 98 th



# reductions in ambient concentrations that the area would need to achieve in order to monitor attainment are important factors. Another important factor is whether additional control measures could be implemented in time and reduce emissions adequately to attain the NAAQS. Given the significant reductions in ambient PM 2.5 

# 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 qualityrelated 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 22 

# percentile values in 2012 and 2013, EPA calculated for each of
these monitoring sites the maximum 98 th 

# 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 μg/m 3 

# . EPA also

calculated a low estimate of the 98 th 

# 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 98 th 

# 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

36 

# Identification of the 98 th 

# percentile 24-hour concentration is based on the number of creditable samples in a given year. See 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, Section 4.5. Specifically, in any year for which there are at least 351 creditable samples, the 98 th 

# percentile is the 8 th 

# highest concentration, and as the number of creditable samples decreases the 98 th 

# percentile concentration increases. See id. at Table 1. To calculate a low estimate of the 98 th 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 23 

# 65 μg/m 3 

# . Thus, these two monitoring sites in Bakersfield cannot
practicably show a 24-hour PM 2.5 

# NAAQS design value at or below
65 μg/m 3 

# by April 5, 2015.

**Table 4: Preliminary Recorded 2014 24-hour PM 2.5**  

# Concentrations **(in μg/m 3**  

# ) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of 98 **th** 

# Percentile Values

98 th 

# Percentile

in 2012 a 

# 98 th 

# P ercentile

in 2013 a 

# Low Estimate of 98 th 

# Percentile in 2014 b 

# Max 98 th 

# Percentile Allowed in 2014 to Attain b 

# Bakersfield – Planz 40.6 96.7 64.4 58.9
Bakersfield – CA Ave 56.4 71.8 72.6 68.0
Hanford 48.3 67.6 76.7 80.3 Fresno - Pacific 51.3 71.6 61.8 73.3

Fresno - Garland 52.6 63.8 65.5 79.8

a 

# Source: See 2013 PM 2.5 

# Design Value Reports.
b 

# See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment (calculations based on preliminary 2014 1 st 

# quarter data for all identified sites and 2 nd 

# 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,This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 24 

# section 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
μg/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

37 

# See note 34 supra. 38 

# See 79 FR 31566 at 31587, 31593 (June 2, 2014).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 25 

# for the SJV area 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” PM 10 

# nonattainment areas at specified

time frames ( i.e., by December 31, 1991 for the initial PM 10


# 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 μg/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.

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).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 26 

# 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. 41 

# Therefore, upon final reclassification of the
SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area, the latest permissible
attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for purposes

of the 1997 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

41 

# See 70 FR 944 at 956, 957 (January 5, 2005).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 27 

# 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 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** 

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 PM 10 

# Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on PM 10 

# Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002) (final action on PM 10 

# 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 PM 10 

# Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but generally upholding EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).
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.”This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 28 

# 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 non-Indian 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 precursorThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 29 

# pollutants (NO X 

# , SO X 

# , VOC, and ammonia) are emitted throughout a
nonattainment area and can be transported throughout that
nonattainment area. Therefore, boundaries for nonattainment
areas are drawn to encompass both areas with direct sources of
the pollution problem as well as nearby areas in the same

airshed. Initial classifications of nonattainment areas are
coterminous with, that is, they match exactly, their boundaries.
EPA believes this approach best ensures public health protection

from the adverse effects of 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 30 

# 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 moreThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 31 

# 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.

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 PM 2.5 

# nonattainment area. All eight letters can be found in the docket for this proposed action.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 32 

# V. PM **2.5** 

# Serious Area SIP Requirements
Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for

the 1997 PM 2.5 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# 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
alternative date practicable (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and

189(b)(1)(A));This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 33 

# 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

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)).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 34 

# 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 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 SeriousThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 35 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# 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 CAAThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 36 

# 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 workThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 37 

# 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

46 

# See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 38 

# 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 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 PM 2.5



# nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 

# standards, consistent with our proposed reclassification of the
surrounding non-Indian 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**This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 39 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 40 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 41 

# 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 thatThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 42 

# 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 alsoThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 43 

# 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 seven tribes with areas of Indian
country in the SJV nonattainment area inviting government-togovernment consultation on the rulemaking effort. We requested
that the tribal leaders, or their designated consultation
representatives, provide input or request government-togovernment 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 1997This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 44 

# PM 2.5 

# 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.This document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 45 

# I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action is not subject to the requirements of Section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of

1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical

standards.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994)
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.
Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental
justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in

the United States.

EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. This proposed action would only
reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainmentThis document is a prepublication version, signed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, Jared Blumenfeld, on 12/18/14. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.



## 46 

# 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 . -

December 18, 2014 /s/

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9.