[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1482-1491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00309]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0813; FRL-9921-22-Region 9]


Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 
California; San Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as Serious 
Nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate nonattainment area, 
including areas of Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment 
area for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> standards in the SJV area by the 
applicable attainment date, which is no later than December 31, 2015, 
or by the most expeditious alternative date practicable, in accordance 
with the requirements of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must arrive by February 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0813, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae6efefa4ebe4e3feebcaeffaeba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b777e7e357a75726f7a5b7e6b7a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail or delivery: Anita Lee; Air Planning Office (AIR-2); 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9; 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, California 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to 
EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as 
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0813) for this proposed rule is available electronically on the

[[Page 1483]]

www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. While all documents 
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3958, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c707979327d7275687d5c796c7d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e424b4b004f40475a4f6e4b5e4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

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<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Monitoring 
Data
III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable 
Attainment Dates
IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country
V. PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF>, particulate matter with a 
diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including an annual standard of 15.0 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of 
annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, and a 24-hour (daily) 
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See 71 FR 61144 
(October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA 
strengthened the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by lowering the level 
to 12 [micro]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 
50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ and annual standard of 
15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant 
correlations between elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and premature 
mortality. Other important health effects associated with 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include older adults, people with heart and 
lung disease, and children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a 
solid or liquid particle (primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> or direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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<INF>2.5</INF>).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA 
published initial air quality designations for the 1997 annual and 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> standard (15.0 [micro]g/m\3\) and the 1997 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard (65 [micro]g/m\3\).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of 
the San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, see 40 
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submittals to 
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the SJV.\8\ We refer to these submittals 
collectively as the ``SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP.'' On November 9, 2011, 
EPA approved all elements of the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (hereafter ``2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule'').\11\ In July 2013, the State submitted a revised 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure plan for the SJV, which EPA fully 
approved in May 2014.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS solely pursuant to the general nonattainment area provisions 
of subpart 1 and not the more specific provisions for particulate 
matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the 
Act.
    \12\ See 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule.\13\ 
In NRDC, the court held that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>10</INF>) in subpart 4, 
part D of title I of the CAA. The court reasoned that the plain meaning 
of the CAA requires

[[Page 1484]]

implementation of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards under subpart 4 
because PM<INF>2.5</INF> particles fall within the statutory definition 
of PM<INF>10</INF> and are thus subject to the same statutory 
requirements as PM<INF>10</INF>. The court remanded the rule and 
instructed EPA ``to repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 
consistent with this opinion.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 
(D.C. Cir. 2013).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<INF>2.5</INF> standards 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area.\17\ Accordingly, EPA's previous approval of the 
April 5, 2015 attainment date for the SJV area remains in effect.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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<INF>2.5</INF> SIP remains effective . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable 
Moderate area attainment date.\19\ On September 25, 2014, the District 
requested that EPA reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious 
nonattainment for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards. This request 
included a demonstration that the SJV cannot practicably attain the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by the April 5, 2015 attainment 
date.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 188(b)(1) of the Act is a general expression of 
delegated rulemaking authority. See ``State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (hereafter 
``General Preamble'') at 13537, n. 15. Although subparagraphs (A) 
and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate that EPA reclassify by 
specified timeframes any areas that it determines appropriate for 
reclassification by those dates, these subparagraphs do not restrict 
the general authority but simply specify that, at a minimum, EPA's 
authority must be exercised at certain times. See id.
    \20\ See letter dated September 25, 2014 from Seyed Sadredin, 
Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, ``RE: San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Request for 
Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley as a Serious 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area for the Federal 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation of Ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Monitoring Data

    A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent 
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established 
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area 
and entered into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air 
monitors operated by state/local agencies in compliance with EPA 
monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies 
annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their 
knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when 
determining the attainment status of areas.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7 and in accordance with part 
50, appendix N, the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard is met when 
the ``annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value'' (based on the 3-year 
average of PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual mean mass concentrations) \22\ is 
less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at each eligible monitoring 
site. The 1997 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard is met when the ``24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value'' (based on the 3-year average 
of annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass concentrations) 
\23\ is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\ at each eligible 
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N (section 1.0).
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Trends in the SJV

    Ambient annual and 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value 
levels in the SJV are the highest recorded in the United States at 18.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ (Madera) and 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (Bakersfield), respectively, for 
the 2011-2013 period.\24\ The levels and composition of ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the SJV differ by season.\25\ Higher 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF>), and are conducive to the formation of ammonium 
nitrate from the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) with 
ammonia. Tables 1 and 2 show the annual and 24-hour concentrations 
recorded at PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring sites in the SJV during the 
2005-2013 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html 
(``PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14'') (hereafter ``2013 
p.m.2.5 Design Value Reports''). The Bakersfield monitor also 
recorded the nation's second highest annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
design value (17.3 [mu]g/m\3\) during this period. See id.
    \25\ See 76 FR 41338 at 41339 (July 13, 2011) (proposed action 
on SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan).

                           Table 1--Annual PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS Design Values \a\ in [micro]g/m\3\ for Monitors in the SJV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Site                       AQS ID      2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
    Golden State Hwy......................   60290010       19.0       18.6       19.2       18.8       19.3        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a
Corcoran..................................   60310004       17.0       17.2       17.6       17.0       17.3       17.1       16.2        n/a        n/a
Hanford...................................   60311004        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a       15.8       17.0
Visalia...................................   61072002       18.0       18.2       19.3       19.7       18.8       16.5       15.2       14.8       16.6
Fresno:
    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   \b\ 14.3   \b\ 15.4
Clovis....................................   60195001       17.1       16.4       16.4       16.3       17.0       16.4       17.0       16.0       16.4
Tranquility...............................   60192009        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        7.4        7.8
Madera....................................   60392010        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a       19.0       18.1
Merced:
    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       13.3

[[Page 1485]]

 
Turlock...................................   60990006        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a       15.3       14.9       15.7
Modesto...................................   60990005       14.0       14.1       14.6       15.3       14.7        n/a        n/a       12.9       13.6
Manteca...................................   60772010        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a       10.2
Stockton..................................   60771002       13.1       12.9       12.8       13.5       12.9       12.1       11.1       11.4       13.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports. The term ``n/a'' means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements
  (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
\a\ The annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50,
  appendix N. For example, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for
  2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ or
  less.
\b\ The Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year
  2012. The design value reported represents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in
  early 2012.


                           Table 2--24-Hour PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS Design Values \a\ in [micro]g/m\3\ for Monitors in the SJV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Site                       AQS ID      2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield:
    Planz.................................   60290016         54         60         68         70         70         65         55         47         60
    CA Ave................................   60290014         58         62         66         66         68         62         62         58         65
    Golden State Hwy......................   60290010         60         64         69         64         66         64        n/a        n/a        n/a
Corcoran..................................   60310004         55         58         61         52         53         49         46         43         49
Hanford...................................   60311004        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         54         60
Visalia...................................   61072002         55         56         58         57         59         51         47         47         56
Fresno:
    Pacific...............................   60195025         57         59         61         52         50         43         48         53         63
    Garland...............................   60190011         60         58         63         58         60         54         58     \b\ 59     \b\ 62
Clovis....................................   60195001         55         56         58         54         53         47         54         54         58
Tranquility...............................   60192009        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         31         30
Madera....................................   60392010        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         51         52
Merced:
    M Street..............................   60472510         45         45         48         50         51         45         39         40         49
    Coffee................................   60470003        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         43         41         42
Turlock...................................   60990006        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         55         51         49         53
Modesto...................................   60990005         49         51         55         54         55         49         50         44         51
Manteca...................................   60772010        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a        n/a         38         37
Stockton..................................   60771002         40         41         45         51         50         44         38         36         45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2013 PM2.5 Design Value Reports. The term ``n/a'' means monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements
  (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
\a\ The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 40
  CFR part 50, appendix N. For example, the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value for 2013 for each monitor is the average of the 98th percentile PM2.5
  concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 at that monitor. The 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the design value at each eligible monitor is 65
  [micro]g/m\3\ or less.
\b\ The Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning with data collected in calendar year
  2012. The design value reported represents a combined site record with the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in
  early 2012.

B. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> annual standard by April 5, 2015.\26\ 
Specifically, the District provided annual average PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> concentration of 15.0 [mu]g/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 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2014 is 7.5 [mu]g/
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<INF>2.5</INF> concentration measured at the Bakersfield-
Planz site in the first quarter of 2014, however, was 29.7 [mu]g/
m\3\.\29\ Thus, according to the District, average PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations at this monitoring site for the remaining three quarters 
of 2014 would have to be zero in order to result in a design value at 
or below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2014.\30\ The remaining three quarters of 
2014 include November and December, which, like other winter months in 
the SJV, tend to experience high PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. These 
preliminary data and analyses indicate that it is not possible for the 
Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ by April 5, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Sadredin Memo at 2-6.
    \27\ Id. at Table 3.
    \28\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.4.
    \29\ See Sadredin Memo at Table 4.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also independently evaluated preliminary 2014 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> concentration for 2012-2014 will likely be 
well above 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Specifically, for each of these monitoring 
sites, EPA calculated the maximum 2014 average PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentration that would enable the site to show a 2014 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\32\

[[Page 1486]]

As shown in Table 3, the 2014 annual average PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Memorandum from Elfego Felix and Scott Bohning to 
Docket entitled ``Practicability of SJV 2014 attainment of the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS'' dated December 10, 2014 with attachment 
entitled ``SJV PM2 5 1997 std impracticable 2014-12-10.xlsx'' 
(hereafter ``Felix and Bohning Memo'').
    \32\ The small differences between the District's and EPA's 
calculations of ``maximum 2014'' values are due to the use of 
different rounding conventions. EPA's calculations of maximum 2014 
values are based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix N, which provides that intermediate calculations are not 
rounded, and that a design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 
[mu]g/m\3\ is rounded down to 15.0 [mu]g/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.

 Table 3--Preliminary Recorded 2014 Annual Average PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Concentrations (in [mu]g/m\3\) for Selected
                          Sites in SJV and Comparison to Lowest Recorded Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Percent
                                                            EPA estimate for                       difference
                                          Average recorded   max 2014 annual   Lowest recorded  between max 2014
                                              2014 \a\       average allowed   annual average      and lowest
                                                              to attain \b\      (year) \b\      recorded annual
                                                                                                     verage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Combined Site Sample Values Report, PM2.5, 2014 (Report Date: August
  7, 2014) (preliminary 2014 1st quarter data for all identified sites and 2nd quarter data for Hanford site).
\b\ See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment.

    If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 
CFR 58.15) and EPA's determination of whether the SJV area meets the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (see 
40 CFR part 50, Sec.  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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ 
by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by this date.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Any reclassification of a Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area as Serious based on a determination that the area 
cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date will be based on the facts and circumstances of the particular 
nonattainment area at issue. Monitored air quality and the 
reductions in ambient concentrations that the area would need to 
achieve in order to monitor attainment are important factors. 
Another important factor is whether additional control measures 
could be implemented in time and reduce emissions adequately to 
attain the NAAQS. Given the significant reductions in ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that the SJV nonattainment area would need 
to monitor attainment, and the extremely short time remaining before 
the applicable attainment date for this area (April 5, 2015), EPA 
focused its analysis in this proposal on air quality-related 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 24-Hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard by April 5, 2015. EPA independently reviewed ambient air 
quality data available in AQS, however, to consider whether the SJV 
area can practicably attain the 24-hour standard by this date.
    Table 4 shows the 98th percentile 24-hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations recorded in 2012 and 2013 at selected monitoring sites. 
The 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations in 2013 were higher than in 
2012, and in some cases the 2013 value was significantly higher than 
the 2012 value, e.g., at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site.\35\ 
Based on these observed 98th percentile values in 2012 and 2013, EPA 
calculated for each of these monitoring sites the maximum 98th 
percentile 24-hour concentration in 2014 that would enable the site to 
show a 2014 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 65 
[mu]g/m\3\. EPA also calculated a low estimate of the 98th percentile 
24-hour concentration for 2014 at each of these sites, based on 
preliminary data reported to AQS for the first quarter of 2014 and a 
conservative assumption that 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations 
remain below these levels for the remainder of the year at each 
monitoring site.\36\ As shown in Table 4, EPA's low estimates of the 
98th percentile concentrations for 2014 at the two monitoring sites in 
Bakersfield (Planz and California Avenue) already exceed the maximum 
2014 values that would enable these two sites to show a 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value for 2014 at or below 65 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Thus, these two monitoring sites in Bakersfield cannot practicably show 
a 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 65 [mu]g/m\3\ 
by April 5, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations observed in the winter of 2013-2014. 
See Sadredin Memo at 3-7.
    \36\ Identification of the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration 
is based on the number of creditable samples in a given year. See 40 
CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.5. Specifically, in any year for 
which there are at least 351 creditable samples, the 98th percentile 
is the 8th highest concentration, and as the number of creditable 
samples decreases the 98th percentile concentration increases. See 
id. at Table 1. To calculate a low estimate of the 98th percentile 
24-hour concentration for 2014 at each monitoring site, EPA assumed 
conservatively that preliminary 2014 monitoring data available in 
AQS (see Table 4) represented the highest values for 2014 (i.e., no 
higher values would be recorded at these sites for the remainder of 
2014) and that the total number of creditable samples in 2014 would 
be consistent with the sampling frequency observed as of August 7, 
2014. See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment. We note that 2014 
monitoring data is not due for certification until May 1, 2015. See 
40 CFR 58.15.

[[Page 1487]]



  Table 4--Preliminary Recorded 2014 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (in [mu]g/m\3\) for Selected Sites in SJV and
                                      Calculation of 98th Percentile Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Max 98th
                                                       98th            98th        Low estimate     percentile
                                                   percentile in   percentile in      of 98th       allowed in
                                                     2012 \a\        2013 \a\      percentile in  2014 to attain
                                                                                      2014 b             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 PM2.5 Design Value Reports.
b See Felix and Bohning Memo and attachment (calculations based on preliminary 2014 1st quarter data for all
  identified sites and 2nd quarter data for Hanford site).

    If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (see 40 
CFR 58.15) and EPA's determination of whether the SJV area meets the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (see 
40 CFR part 50, Sec.  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<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at or below 65 [mu]g/m\3\ 
by April 5, 2015, and that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 
1997 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by this date.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See note 34 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable 
Attainment Dates

    Section 188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan 
for a nonattainment area. Accordingly, the April 5, 2015 attainment 
date that EPA approved on November 9, 2011 for the SJV area remains the 
applicable attainment date for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in this 
area.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 79 FR 31566 at 31587, 31593 (June 2, 2014).
    \39\ See notes 17 and 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas at specified time frames (i.e., by December 31, 
1991 for the initial PM<INF>10</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards of 15.0 and 65 [mu]g/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> standards in this area, will be December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 70 FR 944 at 956, 957 (January 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to EPA for a 
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years, 
which EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain conditions. Before 
EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 
188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment 
date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that 
attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area 
in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent 
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or 
are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented 
in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most 
expeditious alternative date practicable.\42\ As more fully described 
in Section V of this proposal, EPA anticipates that California may 
choose to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area 
attainment date consistent with

[[Page 1488]]

these requirements when it submits a Serious area attainment plan for 
the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards for this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For a discussion of EPA's interpretation of the 
requirements of section 188(e), see ``State Implementation Plans for 
Serious PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date 
Waivers for PM<INF>10</INF> 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<INF>10</INF> Plan for Maricopa County, 
Arizona); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on 
PM<INF>10</INF> Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 
(July 25, 2002) (final action on PM<INF>10</INF> 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<INF>10</INF> 
Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but generally upholding EPA's 
interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
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<INF>2.5</INF> levels are a pervasive pollution problem 
throughout the SJV area. Directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its 
precursor pollutants (NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>X</INF>, 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. Moreover, 
violations of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area that are left classified as Moderate could 
counteract the effects of efforts to attain the standards within the 
overall area because less stringent requirements would apply in those 
Moderate portions relative to those that would apply in the portions of 
the area reclassified to Serious.
    Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is 
thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being 
reclassified. Equally, if EPA believes it is likely that a given 
nonattainment area will not attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> standards.
    The effect of reclassification would be to lower the applicable 
``major source'' emissions threshold for purposes of the nonattainment 
new source review program and the Title V operating permit program from 
its current level of 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 
501(2)(B)) thus subjecting more new or modified stationary sources to 
these requirements. The reclassification may also lower the de minimis 
threshold under the CAA's General Conformity requirements (40 CFR part 
93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Under the General Conformity 
requirements, Federal agencies bear the responsibility of determining 
conformity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that 
require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such permits, approvals 
or funding by Federal agencies for projects in these areas of Indian 
country may be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis 
thresholds.
    Given the potential implications of the reclassification, EPA has 
contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government 
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<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. All eight letters can be found 
in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area SIP Requirements

    Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 1489]]

alternative date practicable (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A));
    3. plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) 
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
    4. quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP 
toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
    5. provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> also apply to major 
stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, except where the 
State demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in 
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
    7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet 
RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 
172(c)(9)); and
    8. a revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program 
to lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \45\ thresholds 
from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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<INF>10</INF> (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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Serious area plan for the area. If California 
fails to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area 
attainment date that satisfies the requirements of section 188(e) and 
the SJV area fails to attain the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment under subpart 4. Pursuant 
to EPA's gap-filling authority in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate 
the statutory control requirements in section 189 of the Act, EPA 
proposes to require the State to submit these nonattainment NSR SIP 
revisions no later than 12 months from the effective date of final 
reclassification of the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> plan submittals. EPA commits to work with the District 
and CARB as they develop the necessary technical support for the 
Serious area plan and to provide guidance on the requirements that 
California must meet to qualify for an extension of the Serious area 
attainment date under CAA section 188(e).
    EPA is currently developing a proposed rulemaking to provide 
guidance to states on the attainment planning requirements in subparts 
1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act that apply to areas designated 
nonattainment for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992) and Addendum, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards based on EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably 
attain these NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2015. 
This proposed action is based upon EPA's evaluation of ambient air 
quality data for the 2003-2014 period indicating that it is not 
practicable for certain monitoring sites within the SJV to show 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values at or below the level of the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> standards in 
the SJV area by the applicable attainment date, which is

[[Page 1490]]

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<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area as 
Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and therefore was not 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 
Reclassification does not itself create any new requirements, and does 
not impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. 
With respect to lands under state jurisdiction, this proposed 
reclassification would trigger statutory deadlines for the state to 
submit Serious area plan elements. With respect to Indian country, 
reclassifications do not establish deadlines for air quality plans or 
plan revisions because tribes are not subject to implementation plan 
submittal deadlines that apply to states as a result of 
reclassifications.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) 
because it does not contain any information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This action will not impose 
any requirements on small entities. The proposed rule would require the 
state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory 
requirements that apply to Serious areas, and would not itself directly 
regulate any small entities. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million 
or more and does not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538). This action itself imposes no enforceable duty on 
any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The 
proposed action would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious 
nonattainment for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which would trigger 
existing statutory timeframes for the state to submit SIP revisions. 
Such a reclassification in and of itself does not impose any federal 
intergovernmental mandate. The proposed action would not require any 
tribes to submit implementation plans.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The 
requirement to submit SIP revisions to meet the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS is imposed by the CAA. This proposed rule does not alter the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action 
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV 
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> and precursors to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>). The proposed rule may also affect new or modified 
stationary sources proposed in these areas that require Federal 
permits, approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the 
requirements of EPA's General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, 
approvals, or funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain 
because of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by 
reclassification.
    Given these potential implications, EPA contacted tribal officials 
during the process of developing this proposed rule to provide an 
opportunity for the tribes to have meaningful and timely input into its 
development. On September 30, 2014, we sent letters to leaders of the

[[Page 1491]]

seven tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area 
inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking 
effort. We requested that the tribal leaders, or their designated 
consultation representatives, provide input or request government-to-
government consultation by October 27, 2014. We did not receive a 
response from any of the tribes. As noted above, EPA inadvertently did 
not send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe prior to this proposed 
action. We recognize that the proposed reclassification may be of 
interest to officials of the Tejon Indian Tribe and we are contacting 
them presently to offer them an opportunity for government-to-
government consultation. We intend to continue communicating with all 
eight tribes located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment 
area for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

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 nonattainment for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which would trigger additional Serious area 
planning requirements under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

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

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2015-00309 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>