Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49187 

1 VOC and NOX are often referred to as 

‘‘precursors’’ to ozone formation. 

2For additional information on ozone, please 

visit www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0117; FRL–9931–11– 

Region 6] 

Determination of Attainment; Texas; 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 

Ozone Nonattainment Area; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

1997 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

(HGB) 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

is currently attaining the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This determination is based 

upon certified ambient air monitoring 

data that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the 2012–2014 monitoring period 

and continues to monitor attainment of 

the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 

data. If this proposed determination is 

made final, the requirements for this 

area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) documents 

related to attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. This proposed action is 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation of 

certain requirements of part D of title I 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2015–0117, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Wendy Jacques at 

jacques.wendy@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0117. 

The EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 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). Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Wendy Jacques, (214) 665–7395, 

jacques.wendy@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please contact Ms. 

Jacques or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665– 

7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

I. Background 

Section 109 of the Act requires the 

EPA to establish a NAAQS for 

pollutants that ‘‘may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health 

and welfare’’ and to develop a primary 

and secondary standard for each 

NAAQS. The primary standard is 

designed to protect human health with 

an adequate margin of safety and the 

secondary standard is designed to 

protect public welfare and the 

environment. The EPA has set NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants, referred 

to as criteria pollutants: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. These standards present state 

and local governments with the 

minimum air quality levels they must 

meet to comply with the Act. Also, 

these standards provide information to 

residents of the United States about the 

air quality in their communities. 

Ozone is a gas composed of three 

oxygen atoms. Ground-level ozone is 

generally not emitted directly from a 

vehicle’s exhaust or an industrial 

smokestack, but is created by a chemical 

reaction between volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight.1 Ozone is known primarily as 

a summertime air pollutant. Motor 

vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical 

solvents and natural sources emit NOX

and VOCs. Urban areas tend to have 

high concentrations of ground-level 

ozone, but areas without significant 

industrial activity and with relatively 

low vehicular traffic are also subject to 

increased ozone levels because wind 

carries ozone and its precursors 

hundreds of miles from their sources.2

On July 18, 1997, the EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), known 

as the 1997 ozone standard. See 62 FR 

38856 and 40 CFR 50.10. Under the EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I, the 1997 ozone standard is attained 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ambient ozone concentration is 

less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. 

On April 30, 2004, the EPA 

designated and classified the 8-county 

HGB area (consisting of Brazoria, 

Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and Waller 

counties) as a Moderate nonattainment 

area under the 1997 ozone standard 

with an attainment date of no later than 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3The attainment date for the HGB Severe 

nonattainment area is as expeditiously as 

practicable, but not later than June 15, 2019. 

4The EPA’s actions herein do not address the 

HGB nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

5The EPA initially issued the Clean Data Policy 

in 1995, ‘‘RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and 

Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard,’’ Memorandum from John S. 

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, May 10, 1995. For purposes of the 1997 

ozone standard, we codified that policy at 40 CFR 

51.918. This codified policy was upheld by the D.C. 

Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. 2009). 

The policy memo is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

6See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/

ozone_data.html. Preliminary data for the first 

quarter of 2015 are posted in AQS and are provided 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858 and 69 

FR 23951). On June 15, 2007, we 

received a request from the Governor of 

Texas seeking voluntary reclassification 

of the HGB area from a Moderate 

nonattainment area to a Severe 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone standard, which we approved on 

October 1, 2008 (73 FR 56983).3

Subsequently, the State submitted the 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIPs for 

the HGB Severe area under the 1997 

ozone standard. These RFP and AD SIPs 

were approved on January 2, 2014 (see 

79 FR 51 and 79 FR 57, respectively). 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm (the 2008 

ozone standard). On April 30, 2012, the 

EPA promulgated designations under 

the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088) 

and in that action the EPA designated 

the 8-county HGB area as a Marginal 

ozone nonattainment area.4 The rule to 

implement the 2008 ozone standard was 

finalized on March 6, 2014 (see 80 FR 

12264) and in that action the EPA 

revised the Clean Data Policy 5 to 

include the 2008 ozone NAAQS and any 

prior ozone NAAQS. That is, upon a 

determination by the EPA that an area 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, or for any prior ozone 

NAAQS, has attained the relevant 

standard, the requirements for such area 

to submit attainment demonstrations 

and associated RFP plans, contingency 

measures for failure to attain or make 

reasonable progress and other planning 

SIPs required under section 182 of the 

Act related to attainment-of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, or for any prior NAAQS 

for which the determination has been 

made, shall be suspended until such 

time as: (1) The area is redesignated to 

attainment for that NAAQS or a 

redesignation substitute is approved as 

appropriate, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply; or (2) the 

EPA determines that the area has 

violated that NAAQS, at which time the 

area is again required to submit such 

plans. See 80 FR 12264, 12317 and 40 

CFR 51.1118. 

If the EPA’s determination that the 

HGB area is currently attaining the 1997 

ozone standard is finalized, 40 CFR 

51.1118 provides that the requirements 

for the TCEQ to submit certain RFP 

plans, attainment demonstrations, 

contingency measures and any other 

attainment planning requirements of the 

CAA related to attainment of that 

standard in the HGB area shall be 

suspended for as long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. This 

action is known as a Clean Data 

Determination or CDD. However, a CDD 

does not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the Act, and if the EPA determines that 

the area subsequently violates the 

standard, that suspension of the 

requirement to submit the attainment 

planning SIP provisions is lifted, and 

those requirements are once again due. 

Even though the EPA has finalized 

revocation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS, under 40 CFR 51.1118, an area 

remains subject to the obligations for a 

revoked NAAQS until either (i) the area 

is redesignated to attainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS; or (ii) the EPA 

approves a demonstration for the area in 

a redesignation substitute procedure for 

a revoked NAAQS per the provisions of 

§ 51.1105(b). Under this redesignation 

substitute procedure for a revoked 

NAAQS, and for this limited antibacksliding purpose, the demonstration 

must show that the area has attained 

that revoked NAAQS due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

and that the area will maintain that 

revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the 

date of the EPA’s approval of this 

showing. We also note that the CDD 

does not constitute a Determination of 

Attainment by an Area’s Attainment 

Date under sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the HGB 

Data 

For ozone, an area is considered to be 

attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS if 

there are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data. Under the EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 

ozone standard is attained when the 3- 

year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations at an ozone 

monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 

parts per million (ppm), (i.e., 0.084 

ppm, when rounding, based on the 

truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I). This 3-year average is 

referred to as the design value. When 

the design value is less than or equal to 

0.084 ppm at each monitor within the 

area, then the area is meeting the 

NAAQS. Also, the data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than or equal 

to 90%, and no single year has less than 

75% data completeness as determined 

in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The 

data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS). The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. For ease of 

communication, many reports of ozone 

concentrations are given in parts per 

billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1,000. Thus, 

0.084 ppm equals 84 ppb. 

The EPA reviewed the HGB area 

ozone monitoring data from ambient 

ozone monitoring stations for 2012– 

2014 and through July 2015. The 2012– 

2014 data for all the ozone monitors in 

the HGB area have been quality assured 

and certified by the EPA. The design 

value for 2012–2014 is 80 ppb. At the 

time of this writing, the preliminary 

ozone data for 2015 are posted on the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) Web site and in AQS.6

The data for 2012–2014, and 

preliminary data for 2015, show that the 

HGB area is attaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations for the HGB 

nonattainment area monitors for the 

years 2012–2014. (To find the overall 

design value for the area for a given 

year, simply find the highest design 

value from any of the 20 monitors for 

that year.) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49189 

TABLE 1—THE HGB AREA FOURTH HIGH 8-HOUR OZONE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES (PPM) FOR

2012–2014 1

Site name and AQS No. 

4th Highest daily max Design value 

(2012–2014) 2012 2013 2014 

Seabrook Friendship Park, 482011050 ........................................................... 0.086 0.067 0.065 0.072 

Houston Westhollow, 482010066 .................................................................... 0.081 0.077 0.070 0.076 

Houston Deer Park #2, 482011039 ................................................................. 0.085 0.069 0.063 0.072 

Houston North Wayside, 482010046 .............................................................. 0.075 0.070 0.062 0.069 

Houston Monroe, 482010062 .......................................................................... 0.085 0.074 0.065 0.074 

Conroe Relocated, 483390078 ........................................................................ 0.082 0.075 0.072 0.076 

Houston East, 482011034 ............................................................................... 0.083 0.069 0.066 0.072 

Channelview, 482010026 ................................................................................ 0.077 0.061 0.064 0.067 

Lake Jackson, 480391016 ............................................................................... 0.071 0.067 0.061 0.066 

Baytown Garth, 482011017 ............................................................................. 0.071 0.061 0.067 0.066 

Park Place, 482010416 ................................................................................... 0.077 0.079 0.066 0.074

Houston Croquet, 482010051 ......................................................................... 0.079 0.079 0.067 0.075 

Houston Aldine, 482010024 ............................................................................ 0.075 0.074 0.068 0.072 

Houston Bayland Park, 482010055 ................................................................. 0.077 0.081 0.067 0.075 

Clinton, 482011035 .......................................................................................... 0.081 0.067 0.058 0.068 

Northwest Harris County, 482010029 ............................................................. 0.082 0.080 0.063 0.075 

Manvel Croix Park, 480391004 ....................................................................... 0.087 0.084 0.071 0.080 

Lang, 482010047 ............................................................................................. 0.081 0.079 0.064 0.074 

Galveston 99th Street, 481671034 .................................................................. 0.081 0.064 0.071 0.072 

Lynchburg Ferry, 482011015 .......................................................................... 0.075 0.064 0.059 0.066 

1These ozone monitors have remained in the same location for the duration of the monitoring period from 2012 to 2014. The TCEQ Web site 

includes monitoring data for the Texas Avenue site, but Table 1 here does not. Data from the Texas Avenue site is excluded because the site 

does not meet siting criteria required by 40 CFR part 58 Appendix E. The TCEQ has requested NAAQS exclusion for the pollutants monitored at 

this site since 2002. The TCEQ ozone monitors and data are posted at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl. 

As shown in Table 1, the 8-hour 

ozone design value for 2012–2014, 

which is based on a three-year average 

of the fourth-highest daily maximum 

average ozone concentration at the 

monitor recording the highest 

concentrations, is 80 ppb, which meets 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Data for 2015 

not yet certified also indicate that the 

area continues to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. In addition, ozone data for 

2015 that are available in the EPA AQS 

database show this area continues to 

attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The AQS 

data reports for the HGB area for the 

three years 2012 through 2014 and the 

first quarter of 2015 are included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. Proposed Action 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1118, 

the EPA is proposing to determine that 

the HGB 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area is currently attaining the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. This determination is 

based upon certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for the 2012–2014 monitoring 

period and continues to monitor 

attainment of the NAAQS based on 

preliminary 2015 data. Thus the 

requirements for such area to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, RFP plans, contingency 

measures for failure to attain or make 

reasonable progress and other planning 

SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS shall be suspended until 

such time as: (1) The area is 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS or a redesignation 

substitute is approved as appropriate, at 

which time the requirements no longer 

apply; or (2) the EPA determines that 

the area has violated the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, at which time the area is again 

required to submit such plans. This 

proposal is consistent with our 

interpretation of certain requirements of 

part D of title I of the Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it merely 

makes a determination based on air 

quality data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 

mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 

50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened 

the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the 

level to 12 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) 

and 40 CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references 

to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, 

are to the 1997 24-hour standard (65 mg/m3) and 

annual standard (15.0 mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 

50.7. 

2 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 

81.305. 

3For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

4 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011) (final 

action on 2008 PM2.5 Plan). 

5 Id. at 69924. 

6 78 FR 53113, 53115–53116 (August 28, 2013) 

(proposed action on Contingency Measure SIP). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 3, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20026 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0534; FRL–9932–45– 

Region 9] 

Withdrawal of Approval and 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures 

for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

a May 22, 2014 final action approving 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to address contingency measure 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Simultaneously, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove this SIP 

submission. These proposed actions are 

in response to a decision issued by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Committee for a Better Arvin v. 

EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)) 

remanding EPA’s approval of a related 

SIP submission and rejecting EPA’s 

rationale for approving plan 

submissions that rely on California 

mobile source control measures to meet 

SIP requirements such as contingency 

measures, which was a necessary basis 

for the May 22, 2014 final rule. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Doris Lo, (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials in person, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

(415) 972–3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particles less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5), including an annual 

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

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

m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations.1 Effective April 5, 2005, 

EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) area in California as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 The SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area is located in the 

southern half of California’s central 

valley and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern.3 The 

local air district with primary 

responsibility for developing state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain 

the NAAQS in this area is the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD or District). 

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.4 We 

refer to these submittals collectively as 

the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ On November 9, 

2011, EPA approved all elements of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the 

contingency measures, which EPA 

disapproved for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).5

On July 3, 2013, the State made a new 

submission to meet the contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal) to 

correct the deficiencies identified in 

EPA’s November 2011 action 

disapproving the contingency measure 

element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.6

On May 22, 2014, EPA fully approved 

the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal based on the Agency’s 

conclusion that this SIP submittal 

corrected then outstanding deficiencies 

in the CAA section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures for the 1997 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS