Attainment Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California 1997 Annual PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area, 55901-55911 [2024-14617]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this
proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve,
as a revision to the California SIP, the
15 mg/m3 Plan Amendments, which
amends the Valley Incentive Measure
for the purposes of emissions reductions
in 2023 and revises the aggregate
tonnage commitment in the 15 mg/m3
SIP Revision to reflect that it has been
satisfied by the Valley Incentive
Measure. We also propose to approve
the State’s demonstration that the Valley
Incentive Measure has achieved
emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of NOX
and 0.27 tpd of direct PM2.5 in the year
2023.
The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
plans as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For these reasons, 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
because it proposes to approve a state
plan;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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;
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as
‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.’’ The EPA further defines the
term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no
group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operaions or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA performed an EJ analysis, as is
described above in the section titled,
‘‘Environmental Justice
Considerations.’’ The analysis was
included in this document for the
purpose of providing additional context
and information about this rulemaking
to the public, not as a basis of the
action. Due to the nature of the action
being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral impact on the air
quality of the affected area. In addition,
there is no information in the record
upon which this decision is based
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55901
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving EJ for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 27, 2024.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–14677 Filed 7–5–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0250; FRL–12006–
01–R9]
Attainment Date Extension for the San
Joaquin Valley, California 1997 Annual
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a
one-year extension of the applicable
‘‘Serious’’ attainment date for the 1997
annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
San Joaquin Valley, California
nonattainment area. This action is based
on the EPA’s evaluation of air quality
monitoring data and the extension
request submitted by the State of
California on May 23, 2024. The EPA is
proposing to grant a one-year extension
of the Serious attainment date from
December 31, 2023, to December 31,
2024, in accordance with section
172(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2024–0250 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55902
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. 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 submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105; phone: (415) 972–3877; email:
graham.ashleyr@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
B. San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Designations,
Classifications, and SIP Revisions
C. CAA Requirements for an Attainment
Date Extension
II. The State’s Request for an Extension
III. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP
B. Air Quality Data
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. The EPA’s Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the CAA, the
EPA has established NAAQS for certain
pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts
periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether the EPA should
revise or establish new NAAQS to
protect public health.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the
NAAQS for particulate matter by
establishing new NAAQS for particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
(PM2.5).1 The EPA established primary
and secondary annual and 24-hour
standards for PM2.5.2 The EPA set the
annual primary and secondary
standards at 15.0 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3), based on a three-year
average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and set the 24-hour
primary and secondary standards at 65
mg/m3, based on the three-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each monitoring site
within an area.3 Collectively, we refer
herein to the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the ‘‘1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.’’
On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised
the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
to 35 mg/m3,4 and on January 15, 2013,
the EPA revised the level of the primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 mg/m3.5
On February 7, 2024, the EPA revised
the level of the primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS once more to 9.0 mg/m3.6 Even
though the EPA lowered the 24-hour
and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS remain in effect and
the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
remains in effect in areas designated
nonattainment for that NAAQS.7
The EPA established each of the PM2.5
NAAQS after considering substantial
evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects
are associated with exposures to PM2.5
concentrations above these levels.
Epidemiological studies have shown
statistically significant correlations
between elevated PM2.5 levels and
premature mortality. Other important
health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure include aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(as indicated by increased hospital
admissions, emergency room visits,
absences from school or work, and
restricted activity dates), changes in
lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, and new evidence for more
subtle indicators of cardiovascular
health. Individuals particularly
sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
FR 38652.
a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ NAAQS are
those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect
the public health, allowing an adequate margin of
safety, and ‘‘secondary’’ standards are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the
public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such
air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
3 40 CFR 50.7.
4 71 FR 61144.
5 78 FR 3086.
6 89 FR 16202.
7 40 CFR 50.13(d).
PO 00000
1 62
2 For
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
older adults, people with heart and lung
disease, and children.8
PM2.5 can be particles emitted by
sources directly into the atmosphere as
a solid or liquid particle (‘‘primary
PM2.5’’ or ‘‘direct PM2.5’’) or can be
particles that form in the atmosphere as
a result of various chemical reactions
from PM2.5 precursor emissions emitted
by sources (‘‘secondary PM2.5’’). The
EPA has identified the precursors of
PM2.5 to be oxides of nitrogen (‘‘NOX’’),
sulfur oxides (‘‘SOX’’), volatile organic
compounds (‘‘VOC’’), and ammonia.9
B. San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Designations, Classifications, and SIP
Revisions
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the EPA is required
under CAA section 107(d) to designate
areas throughout the nation as
attainment, nonattainment, or
unclassifiable for the NAAQS. Effective
April 5, 2005, the EPA established the
initial air quality designations for the
1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
using air quality monitoring data for the
three-year periods of 2001–2003 and
2002–2004.10 The EPA designated the
San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for
both the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(15.0 mg/m3) and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (65 mg/m3).11
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area encompasses over
23,000 square miles and includes all or
part of eight counties: San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of
Kern.12 The area is home to four million
people and is one of the nation’s leading
agricultural regions. 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.
Under State law, 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
attainment plans. Authority for
regulating sources under State
jurisdiction in the San Joaquin Valley is
8 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/
002bF, October 2004.
9 For example, see 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25,
2007).
10 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
11 40 CFR 81.305.
12 For a precise description of the geographic
boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
split under State law between the
District, which has responsibility for
regulating stationary and most area
sources, and CARB, which has
responsibility for regulating most
mobile sources.
At the time of the initial designations
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
interpreted the CAA to require
implementation of the NAAQS under
the general nonattainment plan
requirements of subpart 1.13 Under
subpart 1, states were required to submit
nonattainment plan SIP submissions
within three years of the effective date
of designations that, among other things,
provided for implementation of
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP), contingency measures, and a
modeled attainment demonstration
showing attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five years from the designation (in
this instance, no later than April 5,
2010), unless the state justified an
attainment date extension of up to five
years.14
Between 2007 and 2011, California
submitted six nonattainment plan and
supporting SIP revisions to address
nonattainment area planning
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley,15 which we
refer to collectively as the ‘‘2008 PM2.5
Plan.’’ On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved the portions of the 2008 PM2.5
Plan, as revised in 2009 and 2011, that
addressed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area, except for the
attainment contingency measures,
which we disapproved.16 We also
granted the State’s request to extend the
attainment deadline for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley to
April 5, 2015.17
Following a January 4, 2013 decision
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit remanding the EPA’s 2007
implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS,18 the EPA published a final
13 72
FR 20586.
sections 172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2),
and 172(c)(9).
15 76 FR 69896, n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
16 Id. at 69924.
17 Id.
18 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d. 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘NRDC’’). In NRDC, the
court held that the EPA erred in implementing the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the general
implementation requirements of subpart 1, without
also considering the requirements specific to
nonattainment areas for particles less than or equal
to 10 mm in diameter (PM10) in subpart 4, part D
of title I of the CAA. The court reasoned that the
plain meaning of the CAA requires implementation
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 because
PM2.5 falls within the statutory definition of PM10
and is thus subject to the same statutory
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14 CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
rule on June 2, 2014, classifying the San
Joaquin Valley as a ‘‘Moderate’’
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS under subpart 4, part D of title
I of the Act.19 In that action, the EPA
acknowledged that states must meet
both subpart 1 and subpart 4
requirements in nonattainment plan SIP
submissions for the 1997 24-hour and
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and provided
states with additional time to
supplement or withdraw and resubmit
any pending nonattainment plan SIP
submissions.
Effective May 7, 2015, the EPA
reclassified the San Joaquin Valley as a
Serious nonattainment area for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on our
determination that the State could not
practicably attain these NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area
by the latest statutory Moderate area
attainment date, i.e., April 5, 2015.20
Upon reclassification as a Serious area,
the State became subject to the
requirement of CAA section 188(c)(2) to
attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than ten years after designation, i.e., by
no later than December 31, 2015.
California submitted its Serious area
plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
San Joaquin Valley in two submissions
dated June 25, 2015, and August 13,
2015, including a request under section
188(e) to extend the attainment date for
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by three
years (to December 31, 2018) and to
extend the attainment date for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by five years (to
December 31, 2020). On February 9,
2016, the EPA proposed to approve
most of the Serious area plan and to
grant the State’s request for extensions
of the December 31, 2015 attainment
date.21 However, on October 6, 2016,
after considering public comments, the
EPA denied California’s request for
these extensions of the attainment
dates.22 Consequently, on November 23,
2016, the EPA determined that the San
Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the
1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS
by the December 31, 2015 Serious area
attainment date.23 This determination
triggered a requirement for California to
requirements as PM10. The court remanded the rule,
without vacatur, and instructed the EPA ‘‘to
repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4
consistent with this opinion.’’
19 79 FR 31566.
20 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
21 81 FR 6936. California’s request for extension
of the Serious Area attainment date for the San
Joaquin Valley accompanied its Serious Area
attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
related motor vehicle emissions budgets, submitted
June 25, 2015, and August 13, 2015, respectively.
22 81 FR 69396.
23 81 FR 84481.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55903
submit a new SIP submission for the
1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS
for the San Joaquin Valley that satisfies
the requirements of CAA section 189(d).
The statutory deadline for this
additional SIP submission was
December 31, 2016. The EPA did not
finalize the actions proposed on
February 9, 2016, with respect to the
submitted Serious area plan.24
On December 6, 2018, the EPA
determined that California had failed to
submit a complete section 189(d)
attainment plan for the 1997 24-hour
and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among other
required SIP submissions for the San
Joaquin Valley, by the statutory
deadlines.25 This finding, which
became effective on January 7, 2019,
triggered clocks under CAA section
179(a) for the application of emissions
offset sanctions 18 months after the
finding, and highway funding sanctions
6 months thereafter, unless the EPA
affirmatively determined that the State
made a complete SIP submission
addressing the identified failure to
submit deficiencies.26 The finding also
triggered the obligation under CAA
section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate
a federal implementation plan no later
than two years after the finding, unless
the State submitted, and the EPA
approved, the required SIP
submission.27
On May 10, 2019, CARB submitted
the ‘‘2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 Standards,’’ adopted by the
SJVUAPCD on November 15, 2018, and
by CARB on January 24, 2019 (‘‘2018
PM2.5 Plan’’).28 The 2018 PM2.5 Plan
addressed the Serious area
nonattainment plan and CAA section
189(d) requirements for the 1997 24hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among
other requirements for the 2006 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. CARB clarified in
its submittal letter that the 2018 PM2.5
Plan superseded past submissions to the
EPA that the agency had not yet acted
on for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including the 2015 Serious area
attainment plan submissions.29 On June
24, 2020, the EPA issued a letter finding
these submissions complete and
24 81
FR 69396, 69400.
FR 62720.
26 Id. at 62723.
27 Id.
28 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
29 The 2015 Serious area attainment plan
submissions include the ‘‘2015 Plan for the 1997
Standard’’ (submitted by CARB on June 25, 2015)
and motor vehicle emissions budgets (submitted by
CARB August 13, 2015).
25 83
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55904
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
terminating the sanctions clocks under
CAA section 179(a).30
On January 28, 2022, the EPA
approved those portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that pertain to the 1997 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, except for the
contingency measure element, which
the EPA disapproved.31 As part of that
action, the EPA also finalized a
determination that the San Joaquin
Valley attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of December 31, 2020, and that
therefore the requirement for
contingency measures no longer applies
in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.32
On July 22, 2021, the EPA proposed
to partially approve and partially
disapprove portions of the 2018 PM2.5
Plan that addressed attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.33
The EPA proposed to approve the 2013
base year emissions inventories and
disapprove the attainment
demonstration and related elements,
including the comprehensive precursor
demonstration, five percent annual
emissions reductions demonstration,
best available control measures (BACM)
demonstration, RFP demonstration,
quantitative milestones, and motor
vehicle emissions budgets established
for 2017, 2020, and 2023. We proposed
to disapprove the attainment
demonstration and related elements
because certified air quality data were
available that established that the San
Joaquin Valley area did not attain the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2020, as projected in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan. On November 26,
2021, the EPA finalized the partial
approval and partial disapproval of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS as proposed.34
As a result of the November 26, 2021
disapprovals, California was required to
develop and submit a revised
attainment plan for the San Joaquin
Valley area that addressed the
applicable CAA requirements, including
the Serious area plan requirements and
the requirements of CAA section 189(d),
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In
30 Letter dated June 24, 2020, from Elizabeth J.
Adams, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA
Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, Subject: ‘‘RE: Completeness Finding for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions for
San Joaquin Valley for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Termination of
Clean Air Act (CAA) Sanction Clocks.’’
31 87 FR 4503 (January 28, 2022).
32 Id. at 4506.
33 86 FR 38652.
34 86 FR 67329.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
accordance with sections 179(d)(3) and
172(a)(2) of the CAA, the revised plan
was required to demonstrate attainment
of these NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than 5 years
from the date of the EPA’s prior
determination that the area failed to
attain (i.e., by November 23, 2021),
except that the EPA could extend the
attainment date to a date no later than
10 years from the failure to attain
determination (i.e., to November 23,
2026), ‘‘considering the severity of
nonattainment and the availability and
feasibility of pollution control
measures.’’ 35
On November 8, 2021, CARB
submitted the ‘‘Attainment Plan
Revision for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
Standard’’ (‘‘15 mg/m3 SIP Revision’’),
adopted by the SJVUAPCD on August
19, 2021, and adopted by CARB on
September 23, 2021.36 In the letter
accompanying the submission, CARB
clarified that the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision
amended the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.37
On December 14, 2023, the EPA
approved the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision as
a revision to the California SIP,
establishing an applicable attainment
date of December 31, 2023, for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley.38
C. CAA Requirements for an Attainment
Date Extension
Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the
EPA may grant a state’s request to
extend the attainment date established
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) if: ‘‘(1)
the State has complied with all
requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan, and (2) in
accordance with guidance published by
the Administrator, no more than the
minimal number of exceedances of the
relevant national ambient air quality
standard has occurred in the area in the
year preceding the Extension Year.’’ The
EPA may grant a second 1-year
extension if these same criteria are met
at the end of the first extension year.
The EPA cannot issue more than two
one-year extensions under section
35 81 FR 84481, 84482 (final EPA action
determining that the San Joaquin Valley had failed
to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December
31, 2015, Serious area attainment date).
36 Letter dated November 8, 2021, from Richard
W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah
Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9. The 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision was developed jointly
by CARB and the District.
37 Id. at 1.
38 88 FR 86581. As discussed in the EPA’s
proposal to approve the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision, the
attainment date for the 189(d) plan was established
consistent with CAA sections 179(d)(3) and
172(a)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
172(a)(2)(C) for a single nonattainment
area.
In an August 24, 2016 final rule
entitled, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements’’ (‘‘PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule’’), the EPA
established regulatory requirements and
provided further interpretive guidance
on the statutory SIP requirements that
apply to areas designated nonattainment
for the PM2.5 NAAQS,39 including
guidance on the extension provisions
for particulate matter nonattainment
areas under CAA section 188. Because
CAA section 188(d) is nearly identical
to CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the EPA
considers the guidance pertaining to the
one-year extension requirements under
CAA section 188(d) to persuasively
inform the requirements for a one-year
extension for a particulate matter
nonattainment area under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C). Thus, our assessment of the
State’s extension request will rely on the
guidance for one-year extensions under
CAA section 188(d).
With regard to the first criterion for an
extension of the attainment date, the
EPA clarified in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule that a state must
show that it has ‘‘submitted the
necessary attainment plan for the area
for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is
implementing the control measures in
the submission.’’ 40 The EPA interprets
this requirement to mean that a state
must have adopted and be
implementing the control measures and
commitments in the approved SIP
revisions it has submitted to address the
CAA requirements for the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS.41
With regard to the second criterion,
the EPA explains in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule that we interpret
that ‘‘a state seeking an attainment date
extension for an annual PM2.5 NAAQS
would be required to demonstrate that
the area had clean data for that
particular standard . . . in the calendar
year prior to the applicable attainment
date for the area . . .’’ 42 That is, for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, a state
39 81
FR 58010.
at 58070.
41 See Delaware Dept. of Nat. Resources and
Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 101 (D.C. Cir.
2018) (holding that for the purposes of an
attainment date extension, the CAA requires only
that an applying state with jurisdiction over a
nonattainment area comply with the requirements
in its applicable SIP, not every requirement of the
Act); see also Vigil v. Leavitt, 381 F.3d 826, 846 (9th
Cir. 2004). A state may meet this requirement by
certifying its compliance, and in the absence of
such certification, the EPA may make a
determination as to whether the criterion has been
met. See Delaware, 895 F.3d, pp. 101–102.
42 81 FR 58010, 58071.
40 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
would need to show that the annual
mean value in the year proceeding the
attainment year (in this case, 2023) did
not exceed the 15.0 mg/m3 level of the
standard.
If the EPA finds that a state has
satisfied the criteria for an extension
and grants an extension of the
attainment date, the EPA must
determine whether the area attained the
relevant NAAQS following the end of
the extension year (unless the state
requests a second one-year extension
and the EPA finds that the requirements
for such extension are satisfied and
extends the attainment date by an
additional year). In the absence of an
attainment date extension, upon a
determination of failure to attain by the
EPA, the state would be required to
develop a revised attainment plan for
the area.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. The State’s Request for an Extension
As discussed in Section I.B of this
document, on December 14, 2023, the
EPA approved California’s plan to
address the Serious area and CAA
section 189(d) plan requirements for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, establishing
a December 31, 2023 attainment date.
On May 23, 2024, the State of California
transmitted a letter to the EPA
requesting that the EPA grant a one-year
extension under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C) to the applicable Serious
area attainment date for the San Joaquin
Valley from December 31, 2023, to
December 31, 2024.43 In its request, the
State certified that it has complied with
all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the approved
implementation plan and that complete,
certified monitoring data for the San
Joaquin Valley for 2023 are below the
level of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State’s May 23, 2024 extension
request includes documentation in three
enclosures in support of its certification
that it has complied with the
requirements for an attainment date
extension under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C):
(1) A letter dated May 14, 2024, from Samir
Sheikh, Executive Director/Air Pollution
Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S.
Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ‘‘RE:
Attainment Date Extension for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin
Valley Nonattainment Area;’’
(2) A document titled ‘‘Documentation of
CARB Having Met Previous State
Implementation Plan Obligations for the 15
mg/m3 PM2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin
Valley’’ (‘‘2024 CARB Compliance
Demonstration’’); and
43 Letter dated May 23, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with
enclosures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
(3) A letter dated April 29, 2024, from
Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, CARB, to Dena Vallano,
Manager, Monitoring and Analysis Section,
EPA Region 9, with enclosures, certifying
2023 ambient data collected by State and
Local Air Monitoring Stations and Special
Purpose Monitors operated by CARB in the
San Joaquin Valley.
We briefly describe each of these
documents in the remainder of this
section and provide more detail as part
of our evaluation in Section III.
The District’s May 14, 2024 extension
request letter includes a discussion of
the State’s SIP submittals to address
CAA requirements, including the
control measure requirements under
CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d); the
State’s submission of quantitative
milestone reports documenting its
progress towards attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and the District’s
amendments to Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood
Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters’’) to address contingency
measure requirements and achieve
reductions in PM2.5 emissions for
purposes of meeting the NAAQS. The
District’s letter also presents certified
ambient air monitoring data for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 2023 calendar
year, which show that the annual mean
concentration was less than 15.0 mg/m3
(i.e., the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS) at all monitoring sites.
The 2024 CARB Compliance
Demonstration documents how CARB
has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by addressing the
requirements in each of the SIP
submittals for those NAAQS (i.e., the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan,
the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and the 15 mg/m3
SIP Revision). For each attainment plan
submittal, CARB discusses the control
measure and emissions reductions it
committed to in the plan and the actions
the State has taken to meet those
commitments (i.e., by adopting the
measures identified in the plan or by
adopting substitute measures). CARB
also discusses the measures the State
has adopted and submitted to the EPA
to address contingency measure
requirements and submissions it has
made to meet its obligations to submit
quantitative milestone reports for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Lastly, in support of the State’s
assertion that it has met the air quality
criterion for a one-year attainment date
extension for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, CARB included with its
extension request a letter certifying 2023
ambient data for the San Joaquin Valley
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55905
collected by monitors operated by
CARB.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP
The first requirement for an extension
of the attainment date under CAA
section 172(a)(2)(C) is a showing that
the state has complied with all
requirements and commitments
pertaining to that area in the
implementation plan. As discussed in
Section I.C of this document, the EPA
interprets this requirement to mean that
a state must have adopted and be
implementing the control measures and
commitments in the SIP revisions it has
submitted to address the CAA
requirements for the applicable PM2.5
NAAQS. For the San Joaquin Valley for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
has approved control measure
requirements and commitments in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 15 mg/m3 SIP
Revision to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan into the
California SIP. Therefore, in the
remainder of this section, we describe
the State’s and District’s
implementation of the control measures
and commitments in those plans.
1. 2008 PM2.5 Plan
The specific State and District
commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the
2008 PM2.5 Plan are as follows:
(1) A commitment by CARB to propose
specific measures identified in Appendix B
of the ‘‘Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for
the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air
Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,’’ dated
April 28, 2011 (‘‘2011 Progress Report’’), in
accordance with the timetable specified
therein; 44
(2) A commitment by the District to ‘‘adopt
and implement the rules and measures in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan’’ in accordance with the
timetable specified in Table 6–2 of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, as amended June 17, 2010, and
to submit these rules and measures to CARB
for transmittal to the EPA as SIP revisions; 45
(3) A commitment by CARB to achieve a
total of 17.1 tons per day (tpd) of NOX
emissions reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions by 2014 as
described in CARB Resolution No. 07–28,
Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and
2011; 46 and
44 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB
Resolution No. 07–28, Attachment B (September 27,
2007), CARB Resolution No. 09–34 (April 24, 2009),
and CARB Resolution No. 11–24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896, 69921–69922, Table 2.
45 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD
Governing Board Resolution No. 08–04–10 (April
30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 10–06–18 (June 17, 2010); see also
76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1.
46 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55906
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(4) A commitment by the District to
achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of NOX emissions
reductions and 0.92 tpd of SOX emissions
reductions by 2014, as described in Table 6–
3a, Table 6–3b, and Table 6–3c, respectively,
of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.47
Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB
proposed for Board consideration, and
the Board adopted, new emissions
standards for recreational boats entitled
‘‘Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine
Watercraft.’’ 53 These State and District
rulemaking actions satisfied the last
remaining control measure
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
All of these measures have been
submitted to the EPA and approved into
the California SIP.54
With respect to the remaining
emissions reduction commitments, the
2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration,
as amended by CARB’s ‘‘Technical
Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan,’’ identified State and District
control measures that, according to
CARB, achieved emissions reductions
beyond those already credited towards
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and satisfied the
State’s remaining 2014 emissions
reduction obligations.55 The EPA
previously determined that the State
and District measures identified in the
State’s demonstration achieved a total of
12.97 tpd of NOX emissions reductions
and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions. These reductions had not
previously been credited as part of the
attainment demonstration in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan and therefore could be
credited toward the State’s outstanding
obligation to achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX
emissions reductions and 3.0 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emissions reductions by the
beginning of 2014.56 Therefore, we
concluded that the State had complied
with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area in the
implementation plan for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.57
As of November 9, 2011, the date of
the EPA’s final action on the 2008 PM2.5
Plan, CARB and the District had each
satisfied substantial portions of these
control measure and emissions
reduction commitments. Specifically,
CARB had proposed action on six of the
seven measures it had committed to
propose for Board consideration, leaving
one additional measure that was
scheduled for proposal in 2013 (‘‘New
Emissions Standards for Recreational
Boats’’).48 The District had adopted 12
of the 13 measures it had committed to
adopt and implement, leaving one
additional measure that was scheduled
for adoption in 2014, amendments to
Rule 4905 (‘‘National Gas-Fired, FanType Central Furnaces’’).49 Finally,
together CARB and the District had
achieved all of the SOX emissions
reduction commitments and substantial
portions of the direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions reductions commitments
through implementation of State and
District control strategy measures,
leaving 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emissions reductions yet to be achieved
by the beginning of 2014.50
Subsequently, CARB submitted a staff
report, entitled ‘‘Review of San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan’’ (‘‘2015 CARB Compliance
Demonstration’’), that contains CARB’s
demonstration that both CARB and the
District had satisfied the commitments
in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained
outstanding as of November 9, 2011.51
As discussed in the 2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration, on January
2. 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision
22, 2015, the District adopted
amendments to Rule 4905 and on April
The control strategy in the 15 mg/m3
7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule to the SIP Revision was based primarily on
EPA as a revision to the California SIP.52
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47 40
CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2).
48 76 FR 69896, 69922, Table 2 (‘‘2007 State
Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for
Consideration and Current Status’’).
49 Id. at 69921, Table 1 (‘‘San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific
Rule Commitments’’).
50 Id. at 69923, Table 4 (‘‘Reductions Needed for
Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on
SIP-Creditable Measures’’).
51 CARB, ‘‘Review of San Joaquin Valley PM
2.5
State Implementation Plan,’’ released April 20, 2015
(‘‘2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration’’),
transmitted by email dated February 5, 2020, from
Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, EPA
Region IX, pp. 17–22 and Appendix B.
52 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, p. 19,
Table 7, and letter dated April 7, 2015, from
Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
(transmitting air district regulations to the EPA as
California SIP revisions).
53 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, p. 20,
Table 8 and CARB, Resolution 15–3, ‘‘Evaporative
Emissions Control Requirements for Spark-Ignition
Marine Watercraft,’’ February 19, 2015, available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/
simw2015.htm.
54 See Technical Support Document, EPA General
Evaluation, San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Table III–A.
55 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, pp.
21–22, and CARB, ‘‘Technical Clarifications to the
2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan,’’ transmitted by email dated
February 5, 2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to
Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region IX, pp. 1–4.
56 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). Also see the EPA’s
proposed rulemaking at 85 FR 17382, 17405–17407
(March 27, 2020).
57 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ongoing emissions reductions from
baseline control measures (i.e., State
and District regulations adopted prior to
the development of the plan that
continue to achieve emissions
reductions through the projected
attainment year and beyond).58
However, the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision
also identified several additional control
measures to provide for expeditious
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.59 These measures include
three regulatory measures adopted by
CARB or the District following
development of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
a commitment by CARB to adopt and
implement an additional regulatory
measure to meet an enforceable
commitment.
The three regulatory measures
adopted following development of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan include CARB’s ‘‘Lower
Opacity Limits for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles’’ regulation,60 CARB’s
‘‘Amended Warranty Requirements for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles’’ regulation,61 and
the District’s 2019 amendments to Rule
4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and
Wood Burning Heaters’’).62 As
discussed in our July 14, 2023 proposal
to approve the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision,
all three of these measures have been
adopted by the State and submitted to
the EPA for SIP approval.63 The EPA
approved the District’s 2019
amendments to Rule 4901 on July 22,
2020,64 and as part of our final rule
approving the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision,
we credited this measure with annual
average emissions reductions of 0.2 tpd
of direct PM2.5 for the purpose of
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
by December 31, 2023.65 The EPA did
not credit CARB’s Lower Opacity Limits
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles regulation or
the Amended Warranty Requirements
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles regulation with
any particular amount of emissions
58 These baseline control measures include many
EPA-approved regulations for on-road and non-road
mobile sources, as well as District measures that
limit NOX and PM2.5 emissions from stationary and
area sources. See discussion in the EPA’s July 14,
2023, proposed approval of the plan (88 FR 45276,
45297–45299).
59 Id. at 45299–45300.
60 Initially adopted via CARB Resolution 18–20
(May 25, 2018). CARB Resolution 18–20 was
repealed on July 26, 2018 via CARB Resolution 18–
28, which included a modified version of the
regulation to address public comments. Per
direction from CARB Resolution 18–28, the
regulation was adopted via Executive Order R19–
001 (March 12, 2019).
61 CARB Resolution 18–24, June 28, 2018.
62 SJVUAPCD Resolution 19–06–22, June 20,
2019.
63 88 FR 45276, 45299–45300.
64 85 FR 44206.
65 88 FR 86581. See also the discussion regarding
this measure in our July 14, 2023, proposed
approval (88 FR 45276, 45299).
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
reductions toward attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the
reasons discussed in our proposal;
however, we noted that the relatively
small quantity of emissions reductions
from these measures would not
materially affect the attainment
demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.66
CARB’s commitment in the 15 mg/m3
SIP Revision was to achieve aggregate
emissions reductions of 3.0 tpd of NOX
and 0.04 tpd of direct PM2.5 (referred to
as an ‘‘aggregate tonnage commitment’’)
through adoption of CARB’s ‘‘HeavyDuty Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program’’ (‘‘Heavy-Duty I/
M’’) (referred to as a ‘‘control measure
commitment’’) and/or substitute
measures.67 CARB adopted the HeavyDuty I/M measure on December 9, 2021,
fulfilling CARB’s control measure
commitment in the 15 mg/m3 SIP
Revision. On December 14, 2022, CARB
submitted the measure to the EPA as a
revision to the California SIP.68 69
Implementation of the program began
on January 1, 2023.
In addition to the baseline and
additional measures discussed herein,
CARB noted in its ‘‘Staff Report,
Proposed SIP Revision for the 15 ug/m3
Annual PM2.5 Standard for the San
Joaquin Valley,’’ (‘‘August 2021 Staff
Report’’) accompanying the 15 mg/m3
SIP Revision that the ‘‘Accelerated
Turnover of Agricultural Equipment
Incentive Projects’’ (‘‘Valley Incentive
Measure’’) was expected to provide for
further emissions reductions by the
2023 attainment year.70 The Valley
Incentive Measure includes
commitments by CARB to monitor,
assess, and report on emissions
reductions, and to achieve emissions
reductions of 5.1 tpd of NOX and 0.3 tpd
of direct PM2.5 from the 2025 baseline
inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan by
December 31, 2024.71 The EPA finalized
a partial approval of this measure on
December 16, 2021, wherein the EPA
credited 4.83 tpd of NOX and 0.24 tpd
of direct PM2.5 towards CARB’s tonnage
66 88
FR, 45276, 45300.
Resolution 21–21, September 23, 2021,
p. 6; and August 2021 Staff Report, pp. 4–5.
68 Letter dated December 7, 2022, from Steven S.
Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
enclosures.
69 At the time that this document was being
prepared, the EPA had not yet proposed action on
the Heavy-Duty I/M measure.
70 August 2021 Staff Report, pp. 3–4.
71 EPA Region IX ‘‘Technical Support Document
for EPA’s Rulemaking for the California State
Implementation Plan California Air Resources
Board Resolution 19–26 San Joaquin Valley
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure,’’
February 2020, pp. 4–5, 24–25, and 31.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67 CARB
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
commitments for 2024 (for attaining the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).72 While
the State did not take credit for any
emissions reductions from this measure
in the 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision, it asserted
in the August 2021 Staff Report that a
large portion of those emissions
reductions would in fact be achieved by
2023.73
To address how California has met the
outstanding aggregate tonnage
commitment in the 15 mg/m3 SIP
Revision, CARB provided updates on
implementation of the Heavy-Duty I/M
program and the Valley Incentive
Measure in the 2024 CARB Compliance
Demonstration. For the Heavy-Duty I/M
program, CARB provided a summary of
the vehicle screening, inspections, and
citations issued in San Joaquin Valley
cities in 2023.74 CARB notes that these
enforcement efforts led to a reduction in
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in
the San Joaquin Valley. However, CARB
explains that because of the ‘‘timesensitive nature of documenting that we
achieved the CARB emission reduction
commitment,’’ it is relying on the
reductions achieved by a substitute
measure, the Valley Incentive Measure,
to demonstrate that it has met the
aggregate tonnage commitment in the 15
mg/m3 SIP Revision.
On June 21, 2024, CARB submitted
the ‘‘Amendments to the 15 mg/m3 SIP
Revision and Agricultural Equipment
Incentive Measure for the 1997 PM2.5
Standard’’ (‘‘15 mg/m3 Plan
Amendments’’) for parallel
processing.75 The 15 mg/m3 Plan
Amendments revises the State’s
aggregate tonnage commitment in the 15
mg/m3 SIP Revision, amends the Valley
Incentive Measure, and demonstrates
that projects implemented under the
SIP-approved Valley Incentive Measure
achieved specified amounts of
reductions in emissions of NOX and
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley area in
the year 2023. In a separate current
action, the EPA is proposing to approve
the 15 mg/m3 Plan Amendments, credit
the emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of
NOX and 0.27 tpd of direct PM2.5 from
72 86 FR 73106 (December 27, 2021). The EPA
approved the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality
Standards Attainment Program (‘‘Carl Moyer
Program’’) and Funding Agricultural Replacement
Measures for Emission Reductions Program’’
(‘‘FARMER Program’’). The EPA deferred action on
the United States Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
portion of the Valley Incentive Measure.
73 CARB’s August 2021 Staff Report, p. 3.
74 2024 CARB Compliance Demonstration, pp. 7–
8.
75 Letter dated June 21, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with
enclosure.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55907
the Valley Incentive Measure in the year
2023, and formally substitute the Valley
Incentive Measure for the Heavy-Duty I/
M measure as the measure satisfying the
aggregate tonnage commitment for the
15 mg/m3 SIP Revision.76 In this action,
the EPA is proposing to find that, upon
final approval of the 15 mg/m3 Plan
Amendments, the State will have
adequately documented that it has
complied with its commitment to
achieve 3.0 tpd of NOX and 0.04 tpd of
direct PM2.5 emissions reductions by the
beginning of 2023. Thus, based on the
EPA’s review of the requirements and
commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and 15 mg/m3 SIP Revision, the
supporting information in the State’s
extension request, and additional
information discussed herein, we find
that the State has complied with all
requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in the applicable SIP. We
therefore propose to find that the area
meets the first criterion to qualify for a
one-year attainment date extension
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
B. Air Quality Data
As discussed in Section I.C of this
document, the second requirement for
an extension of the attainment date
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C) is a
showing that the area had clean data for
the relevant standard in the calendar
year preceding the applicable
attainment date. Such determination is
typically based upon complete, qualityassured data gathered at established
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and
entered into the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) database. Data from
ambient air monitors operated by state/
local agencies in compliance with the
EPA monitoring requirements must be
submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies
annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge.
Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily
on data in AQS when determining
compliance with the NAAQS.77 The
EPA reviews all data to determine the
area’s air quality status in accordance
with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7
and in accordance with Appendix N,
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are met
when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration, as determined in
accordance with the rounding
conventions in 40 CFR part 50,
76 The EPA is proposing to approve the 15 mg/m3
Plan Amendments in a separate rulemaking.
77 See 40 CFR 50.7; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L;
40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part
58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55908
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Appendix N, is less than or equal to
15.0 mg/m3 at each eligible monitoring
site within the area. Data completeness
requirements for a given year are met
when at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days for each
quarter have valid data.78
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA
requires states to establish and operate
air monitoring networks to compile data
on ambient air quality for all criteria
pollutants. The monitoring
requirements are specified in 40 CFR
part 58. These requirements are
applicable to state, and where delegated,
local air monitoring agencies that
operate criteria pollutant monitors. The
regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish
specific requirements for operating air
quality surveillance networks to
measure ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, including requirements for
measurement methods, network design,
quality assurance procedures, and, in
the case of large urban areas, the
minimum number of monitoring sites
designated as SLAMS.
In section 4.7 of Appendix D to 40
CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for
PM2.5 to operate at SLAMS. SLAMS
produce data comparable to the
NAAQS, and therefore, the monitor
must be an approved federal reference
method (FRM) or federal equivalent
method (FEM). The minimum number
of SLAMS required is described in
section 4.7.1 and can be met by either
filter-based or continuous FRMs or
FEMs. The monitoring regulations also
provide that each core-based statistical
area must operate a minimum number
of PM2.5 continuous monitors; 79
however, this requirement can be met
by either an FEM or a non-FEM
continuous monitor, and the continuous
monitors can be located with other
SLAMS or at a different location.
Consequently, the monitoring
requirements for PM2.5 can be met with
filter-based FRMs/FEMs, continuous
FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a
combination of monitors at each
required SLAMS.
During 2023, ambient PM2.5
concentration data were collected at a
total of 18 sites within the San Joaquin
Valley: 5 sites in Fresno County; 3 sites
in Kern County; 2 sites each in Kings,
Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus
counties; and 1 site each in Madera and
Tulare counties. The District operates 12
of these sites while CARB operates 6 of
these sites. All of the sites are
designated SLAMS for PM2.5.80 The
primary monitors are FRMs at 1 of the
18 sites and beta attenuation monitor
FEMs at 17 of the 18 sites. Overall, the
District’s PM2.5 monitoring network
meets, and in several metropolitan
statistical areas exceeds, the PM2.5
minimum monitoring requirements for
the San Joaquin Valley.
Based on our review of the PM2.5
monitoring network as summarized
above, we find that the monitoring
network in the San Joaquin Valley is
adequate for the purpose of collecting
ambient PM2.5 concentration data for
use in determining whether the San
Joaquin Valley had clean data for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the
2023 calendar year.
Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are
required to submit annual monitoring
network plans to the EPA.81 Within the
San Joaquin Valley, CARB and the
District are the agencies responsible for
assuring that the area meets air quality
monitoring requirements. CARB and
SJVUAPCD submit monitoring network
plans to the EPA annually. These plans
describe and discuss the status of the air
monitoring network, as required under
40 CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these
annual network plans for compliance
with the applicable reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With
respect to PM2.5, we have found that the
CARB and SJVUAPCD annual network
plans meet the applicable requirements
under 40 CFR part 58.82
Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring
agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, that data collected at all SLAMS
and at all FRM and FEM special
purpose monitor stations meet the
EPA’s quality assurance requirements.
In doing so, monitoring agencies must
certify that the previous year of ambient
concentration and quality assurance
data are submitted to AQS and that the
ambient concentration data are accurate.
CARB annually certifies that the data
the agency submits to AQS are quality
assured, including the data collected at
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin
Valley.83 SJVUAPCD does the same for
data submitted to AQS from monitoring
sites operated by the District.84
With respect to data completeness, we
determined that the data collected by
CARB and the District meet the
quarterly completeness criterion for all
four quarters of 2023 at most of the
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the San
Joaquin Valley. More specifically,
among the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites
from which regulatory data are
available, only the data from StocktonUniversity (AQS ID: 06–077–1003) did
not meet the 75 percent completeness
criterion for one quarter; 85 however, the
data from the site are sufficient
nonetheless to produce a valid design
value for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the rules governing design
value validity in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, section 4.1.
The EPA evaluated data from calendar
year 2023 to determine whether the San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment
area met the air quality criterion for
granting a one-year extension of the
applicable attainment date for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS from December
31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, under
CAA section 172(a)(2)(C). Table 1 shows
the PM2.5 annual mean at each of the 18
SLAMS monitoring sites for 2023.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—2023 PM2.5 ANNUAL MEAN FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA
Site
(AQS ID)
County
Site name
Fresno ...........................................................................
Fresno ...........................................................................
Fresno ...........................................................................
Fresno-Garland .............................................................
Tranquillity ....................................................................
Fresno-Foundry ............................................................
78 40
CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b).
CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.7.2.
80 There are a number of other PM
2.5 monitoring
sites within the valley, including other sites
operated by the District, the National Park Service,
and certain Indian tribes, but the data collected
from these sites are non-regulatory and not eligible
for comparison with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
81 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1).
82 Letter dated October 30, 2023, from Dena
Vallano, Manager, Monitoring and Analysis
79 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
Section, EPA Region IX, to Sylvia Vanderspek,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB; and
letter dated October 31, 2023, from Dena Vallano,
Manager, Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA
Region IX, to Jon Klassen, Director, Air Quality
Science, SJVUAPCD.
83 For example, see letter dated April 29, 2024,
from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, CARB, to Dena Vallano, Manager,
Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA Region 9,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
06–019–0011
06–019–2009
06–019–2016
Annual mean
(μg/m3)
10.5
4.8
12.5
with enclosures, certifying calendar year 2023
ambient air quality data and quality assurance data.
84 For example, see letter dated April 23, 2024,
from Robert Gilles, Program Manager, SJVUAPCD,
to Matt Lakin, Director, Air and Radiation Division,
EPA Region IX, with attachments, certifying
calendar year 2023 ambient air quality data and
quality assurance data.
85 EPA AQS Combined Site Sample Values,
AMP355, accessed May 17, 2024 (User ID: STSAI,
Report Request ID: 2193827).
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55909
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—2023 PM2.5 ANNUAL MEAN FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued
Site
(AQS ID)
County
Site name
Fresno ...........................................................................
Fresno ...........................................................................
Kern ..............................................................................
Kern ..............................................................................
Kern ..............................................................................
Kings .............................................................................
Kings .............................................................................
Merced ..........................................................................
Merced ..........................................................................
San Joaquin ..................................................................
San Joaquin ..................................................................
Stanislaus .....................................................................
Stanislaus .....................................................................
Madera ..........................................................................
Tulare ............................................................................
Clovis-Villa ....................................................................
Fresno-Pacific ...............................................................
Bakersfield-Golden/M-St ...............................................
Bakersfield-California ....................................................
Bakersfield-Airport (Planz) ............................................
Corcoran-Patterson ......................................................
Hanford-Irwin ................................................................
Merced-M St .................................................................
Merced-Coffee ..............................................................
Stockton-University Park ..............................................
Manteca ........................................................................
Modesto-14th Street .....................................................
Turlock ..........................................................................
Madera-City ..................................................................
Visalia-W Ashland Avenue ...........................................
06–019–5001
06–019–5025
06–029–0010
06–029–0014
06–029–0016
06–031–0004
06–031–1004
06–047–2510
06–047–0003
06–077–1003
06–077–2010
06–099–0005
06–099–0006
06–039–2010
06–107–2003
Annual mean
(μg/m3)
8.6
12.6
13.7
12.0
12.5
10.1
12.5
9.6
8.4
a10.8
7.9
10.5
10.1
9.9
11.7
a Quarter 2 does not meet completeness criteria.
Source: EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, accessed May 17, 2024 (User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID: 2193813).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table 1 shows that the annual mean
for the 2023 calendar year was less than
15.0 mg/m3 (i.e., the level of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS) at each of the 18
SLAMS monitoring sites in the San
Joaquin Valley. Thus, the EPA proposes
to find that the area meets the air quality
criterion to qualify for a one-year
attainment date extension under CAA
section 172(a)(2)(C).
IV. Environmental Justice
Considerations
Executive Order 12898 requires that
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law,
identify and address disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on
minority and low-income populations.86
Additionally, Executive Order 13985
directs federal government agencies to
assess whether, and to what extent, their
programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and
benefits for people of color and other
underserved groups,87 and Executive
Order 14008 directs federal agencies to
develop programs, policies, and
activities to address the
disproportionate health, environmental,
economic, and climate impacts on
disadvantaged communities.88
The CAA gives the EPA the discretion
to extend an area’s applicable
attainment date by one year upon
application by a state if the state has met
the two criteria under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C) (see Section I.C of this
document). To identify environmental
burdens and susceptible populations in
underserved communities in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area and
86 59
FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
FR 7009 (January 25, 2021).
88 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021).
87 86
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
to better understand the context of our
proposed action on these communities,
we rely on the EPA’s August 2022
screening-level analysis for PM2.5 in the
San Joaquin Valley using the EPA’s
environmental justice (EJ) screening and
mapping tool (‘‘EJSCREEN’’). 89 90 The
results of this analysis are being
provided for informational and
transparency purposes.
Our screening-level analysis indicates
that the ‘‘Demographic Index’’ for each
of the eight counties in the San Joaquin
Valley is above the national average,
ranging from 48 percent in Stanislaus
County to 61 percent in Tulare County,
compared to 36 percent nationally. The
Demographic Index is the average of an
area’s percent minority and percent lowincome populations, i.e., the two
populations explicitly named in
Executive Order 12898.91 All eight
89 EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining environmental
and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available
at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. The
EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and
demographic indicators representing each of the
eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley. We note
that the indicators for Kern County are for the entire
county. While the indicators might have slightly
different numbers for the San Joaquin Valley
portion of the county, most of the county’s
population is in the San Joaquin Valley portion, and
thus the differences would be small. These
indicators are included in EJSCREEN reports that
are available in the rulemaking docket for this
action.
90 EPA Region IX, ‘‘EJSCREEN Analysis for the
Eight Counties of the San Joaquin Valley
Nonattainment Area,’’ August 2022.
91 EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators
(e.g., air toxics cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and
traffic proximity and volume) and demographic
indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). The value for a
particular indicator measures how the community
of interest compares with the state, the EPA region,
or the national average. For example, if a given
location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this
means that only 5 percent of the U.S. population
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
counties are above the national average
for demographic indices of
‘‘Linguistically Isolated Population’’ and
‘‘Population with Less than High School
Education.’’
With respect to pollution, all eight
counties are at or above the 97th
percentile nationally for the PM2.5 index
and seven of the eight counties in the
San Joaquin Valley are at or above the
90th percentile nationally for the PM2.5
EJ index, which is a combination of the
Demographic Index and the PM2.5 index.
Most counties are also above the 80th
percentile for each of 11 additional EJ
indices included in the EPA’s
EJSCREEN analysis. In addition, several
counties are above the 90th percentile
for certain EJ indices, including, for
example, the Ozone EJ Index (Fresno,
Kern, Madera, Merced, and Tulare
counties), the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) Respiratory Hazard
EJ Index (Madera and Tulare counties),
and the Wastewater Discharge Indicator
EJ Index (Merced, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tulare counties).92
This proposed action would grant an
extension of attainment date for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Information
on the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
its relationship to negative health
impacts can be found at 62 FR 38652
has a higher value than the average person in the
location being analyzed. EJSCREEN also reports EJ
indexes, which are combinations of a single
environmental indicator with the EJSCREEN
Demographic Index. For additional information
about environmental and demographic indicators
and EJ indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA,
‘‘EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and
Screening Tool—EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,’’ Section 2 (September 2019).
92 Notably, Tulare County is above the 90th
percentile for 6 of the 12 EJ indices in the EPA’s
EJSCREEN analysis, including the PM2.5 EJ Index,
which is the highest value among all San Joaquin
Valley counties.
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
55910
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(July 18, 1997). We expect that this
action will generally have neutral
environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the San Joaquin Valley,
including people of color and lowincome populations. This action would
not worsen existing air quality and there
is no information in the record
indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects
on a particular group of people.
V. The EPA’s Proposed Action
In response to a request from the State
of California on May 23, 2024, the EPA
is proposing to grant a one-year
extension to the applicable Serious area
attainment date for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area. The
proposed action to extend the
applicable Serious attainment date for
this nonattainment area is based on the
EPA’s evaluation of air quality
monitoring data and the extension
request submitted by the State of
California and our determination that
the State has satisfied the two statutory
criteria for a 1-year extension under
CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
If finalized, this action would extend
the applicable Serious area attainment
date for the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area from December 31,
2023, to December 31, 2024. If we
finalize this proposal, consistent with
CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the area will
remain a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area with an applicable Serious area
attainment date of December 31, 2024.
Consistent with CAA section
172(a)(2)(C), the EPA will determine
whether the area attained the standard
within six months following the
applicable attainment date.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. This
action merely proposes to approve a
state request as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no new
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. This action merely proposes to
approve a state request for an attainment
date extension, and this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities beyond those imposed by state
law. Approval of a state’s request for an
attainment date extension does not
create any new requirements and does
not directly regulate any entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will result from this
action.
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. Pursuant to the
CAA, this action merely proposes to
approve a state request for an attainment
date extension.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. Therefore, this action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it merely proposes to approve a
state request for an attainment date
extension as meeting federal
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA’s
Policy on Children’s Health does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as
‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.’’ The EPA further defines the
term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no
group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
Under the CAA, an extension of the
attainment date under section
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules
172(a)(2)(C) does not impose any
additional regulatory requirements on
sources beyond those imposed by state
law. The State did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its
documentation supporting its request
for an attainment date extension; the
CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require
such an evaluation. The EPA performed
an EJ analysis, as is described above in
the section titled, ‘‘Environmental
Justice Considerations.’’ The analysis
was included in this document for the
purpose of providing additional context
and information about this rulemaking
to the public, not as a basis of the
action. Due to the nature of the action
being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral impact on the air
quality of the affected area. In addition,
there is no information in the record
upon which this decision is based
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving EJ for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 27, 2024.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–14617 Filed 7–5–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 24–193; RM–11986; DA 24–
614; FR ID 229399]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Huntley,
Montana
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document requests
comments on a Petition for Rulemaking
filed by SSR Communications, Inc.,
proposing to amend the Table of FM
Allotments, by adding Channel 284A at
Huntley, Montana, as the community’s
first local service. To accommodate the
proposed allotment, we issue Order to
Show Cause to BMG Billings, LLC,
licensee of KYSX, Billings, Montana to
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:50 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
show cause why the station license
should not be modified to specify
operation on Channel 286A in lieu of
reserved Channel 283C1 at Billings,
Montana. A staff engineering analysis
indicates that Channel 284A can be
allotted to Huntley, Montana, consistent
with the minimum distance separation
requirements of the Federal
Communications Commission’s
(Commission) rules, with a site
restriction of 13.9 km (8.6 miles) north
of the community. The reference
coordinates are 46–01–30 NL and 108–
18–00 WL.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before August 19, 2024, and reply
comments on or before September 3,
2024.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service.
All filings must be addressed to the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary are accepted
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the
FCC’s mailing contractor at 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any
deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service)
must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings
sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail
Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530.
In addition to filing comments with
the FCC, interested parties should serve
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55911
the petitioner as follows: Matthew K.
Wesolowski, CEO, SSR
Communications, Inc., 740 Highway 49
North, Suite R, Flora, MS 39071, matt@
wyab.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2054, Rolanda-Faye.Smith@fcc.gov.
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making and Order to
Show Cause, in MB Docket No. 24–193,
DA 24–614; adopted and released on
June 27, 2024. The full text of this
document is available online at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24614A1.pdf.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This
document does not contain proposed
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Providing Accountability Through
Transparency Act. The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency
Act requires each agency, in providing
notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the
proposed rule. Accordingly, the
Commission will publish the required
summary of this NPRM on https://
www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding. Members of the public
should note that from the time a notice
of proposed rulemaking is issued until
the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings,
such as this one, which involve channel
allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for
rules governing permissible ex parte
contacts.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Nazifa Sawez,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55901-55911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14617]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250; FRL-12006-01-R9]
Attainment Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California
1997 Annual PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a one-year extension of the applicable ``Serious'' attainment
date for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) San
Joaquin Valley, California nonattainment area. This action is based on
the EPA's evaluation of air quality monitoring data and the extension
request submitted by the State of California on May 23, 2024. The EPA
is proposing to grant a one-year extension of the Serious attainment
date from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, in accordance with
section 172(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are taking comments
on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0250 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
[[Page 55902]]
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. 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 submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3877; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
B. San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Designations,
Classifications, and SIP Revisions
C. CAA Requirements for an Attainment Date Extension
II. The State's Request for an Extension
III. The EPA's Evaluation
A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP
B. Air Quality Data
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established NAAQS for
certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria
pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether the EPA should revise or establish new NAAQS to protect public
health.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter
by establishing new NAAQS for particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5).\1\
The EPA established primary and secondary annual and 24-hour standards
for PM2.5.\2\ The EPA set the annual primary and secondary
standards at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a
three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and
set the 24-hour primary and secondary standards at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based
on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site within an
area.\3\ Collectively, we refer herein to the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the ``1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 38652.
\2\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' NAAQS are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health,
allowing an adequate margin of safety, and ``secondary'' standards
are those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated
with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA
section 109(b).
\3\ 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\,\4\ and on January 15, 2013,
the EPA revised the level of the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\5\ On February 7, 2024, the EPA revised the level
of the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS once more to 9.0 [mu]g/
m\3\.\6\ Even though the EPA lowered the 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS remain
in effect and the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS remains in
effect in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 71 FR 61144.
\5\ 78 FR 3086.
\6\ 89 FR 16202.
\7\ 40 CFR 50.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA established each of the PM2.5 NAAQS after
considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels. Epidemiological
studies have shown statistically significant correlations between
elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other
important health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure
include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as
indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits,
absences from school or work, and restricted activity dates), changes
in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, and new evidence
for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular health. Individuals
particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older
adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 can be particles emitted by sources directly into
the atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (``primary
PM2.5'' or ``direct PM2.5'') or can be particles
that form in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions
from PM2.5 precursor emissions emitted by sources
(``secondary PM2.5''). The EPA has identified the precursors
of PM2.5 to be oxides of nitrogen (``NOX''),
sulfur oxides (``SOX''), volatile organic compounds
(``VOC''), and ammonia.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, see 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Designations, Classifications, and SIP
Revisions
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
nation as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS.
Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA established the initial air quality
designations for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
using air quality monitoring data for the three-year periods of 2001-
2003 and 2002-2004.\10\ The EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as
nonattainment for both the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0
[micro]g/m\3\) and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (65
[micro]g/m\3\).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
\11\ 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area
encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight
counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare,
Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.\12\ The area is home to four
million people and is one of the nation's leading agricultural regions.
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. Under State law, 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 attainment plans. Authority for
regulating sources under State jurisdiction in the San Joaquin Valley
is
[[Page 55903]]
split under State law between the District, which has responsibility
for regulating stationary and most area sources, and CARB, which has
responsibility for regulating most mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the initial designations for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA interpreted the CAA to require
implementation of the NAAQS under the general nonattainment plan
requirements of subpart 1.\13\ Under subpart 1, states were required to
submit nonattainment plan SIP submissions within three years of the
effective date of designations that, among other things, provided for
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM),
reasonable further progress (RFP), contingency measures, and a modeled
attainment demonstration showing attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the
designation (in this instance, no later than April 5, 2010), unless the
state justified an attainment date extension of up to five years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 72 FR 20586.
\14\ CAA sections 172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and
172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2007 and 2011, California submitted six nonattainment plan
and supporting SIP revisions to address nonattainment area planning
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley,\15\ which we refer to collectively as the ``2008
PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, the EPA approved the
portions of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as revised in 2009 and
2011, that addressed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, except for the attainment
contingency measures, which we disapproved.\16\ We also granted the
State's request to extend the attainment deadline for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley to April 5, 2015.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 76 FR 69896, n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\16\ Id. at 69924.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a January 4, 2013 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit remanding the EPA's 2007 implementation rule for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,\18\ the EPA published a final rule on
June 2, 2014, classifying the San Joaquin Valley as a ``Moderate''
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4,
part D of title I of the Act.\19\ In that action, the EPA acknowledged
that states must meet both subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements in
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the 1997 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and provided states with additional time to
supplement or withdraw and resubmit any pending nonattainment plan SIP
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d. 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``NRDC''). In NRDC, the court held that the EPA
erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely
pursuant to the general implementation requirements of subpart 1,
without also considering the requirements specific to nonattainment
areas for particles less than or equal to 10 [micro]m in diameter
(PM10) in subpart 4, part D of title I of the CAA. The
court reasoned that the plain meaning of the CAA requires
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4
because PM2.5 falls within the statutory definition of
PM10 and is thus subject to the same statutory
requirements as PM10. The court remanded the rule,
without vacatur, and instructed the EPA ``to repromulgate these
rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.''
\19\ 79 FR 31566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective May 7, 2015, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley
as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
based on our determination that the State could not practicably attain
these NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area by the latest
statutory Moderate area attainment date, i.e., April 5, 2015.\20\ Upon
reclassification as a Serious area, the State became subject to the
requirement of CAA section 188(c)(2) to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than ten years after designation, i.e., by no later than December 31,
2015. California submitted its Serious area plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley in two submissions
dated June 25, 2015, and August 13, 2015, including a request under
section 188(e) to extend the attainment date for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by three years (to December 31, 2018) and to
extend the attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
by five years (to December 31, 2020). On February 9, 2016, the EPA
proposed to approve most of the Serious area plan and to grant the
State's request for extensions of the December 31, 2015 attainment
date.\21\ However, on October 6, 2016, after considering public
comments, the EPA denied California's request for these extensions of
the attainment dates.\22\ Consequently, on November 23, 2016, the EPA
determined that the San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 1997
24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015
Serious area attainment date.\23\ This determination triggered a
requirement for California to submit a new SIP submission for the 1997
24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley
that satisfies the requirements of CAA section 189(d). The statutory
deadline for this additional SIP submission was December 31, 2016. The
EPA did not finalize the actions proposed on February 9, 2016, with
respect to the submitted Serious area plan.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
\21\ 81 FR 6936. California's request for extension of the
Serious Area attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley accompanied
its Serious Area attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and related motor vehicle emissions budgets, submitted June 25,
2015, and August 13, 2015, respectively.
\22\ 81 FR 69396.
\23\ 81 FR 84481.
\24\ 81 FR 69396, 69400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2018, the EPA determined that California had failed
to submit a complete section 189(d) attainment plan for the 1997 24-
hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required SIP
submissions for the San Joaquin Valley, by the statutory deadlines.\25\
This finding, which became effective on January 7, 2019, triggered
clocks under CAA section 179(a) for the application of emissions offset
sanctions 18 months after the finding, and highway funding sanctions 6
months thereafter, unless the EPA affirmatively determined that the
State made a complete SIP submission addressing the identified failure
to submit deficiencies.\26\ The finding also triggered the obligation
under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan no later than two years after the finding, unless
the State submitted, and the EPA approved, the required SIP
submission.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 83 FR 62720.
\26\ Id. at 62723.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2019, CARB submitted the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,'' adopted by the SJVUAPCD on
November 15, 2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019 (``2018
PM2.5 Plan'').\28\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addressed
the Serious area nonattainment plan and CAA section 189(d) requirements
for the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among other
requirements for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. CARB
clarified in its submittal letter that the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
superseded past submissions to the EPA that the agency had not yet
acted on for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2015
Serious area attainment plan submissions.\29\ On June 24, 2020, the EPA
issued a letter finding these submissions complete and
[[Page 55904]]
terminating the sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\29\ The 2015 Serious area attainment plan submissions include
the ``2015 Plan for the 1997 Standard'' (submitted by CARB on June
25, 2015) and motor vehicle emissions budgets (submitted by CARB
August 13, 2015).
\30\ Letter dated June 24, 2020, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ``RE: Completeness Finding
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions for San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Termination of Clean Air Act (CAA) Sanction Clocks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 28, 2022, the EPA approved those portions of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan that pertain to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, except for the contingency measure element, which the EPA
disapproved.\31\ As part of that action, the EPA also finalized a
determination that the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 2020, and that therefore the requirement for contingency measures
no longer applies in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the
1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 87 FR 4503 (January 28, 2022).
\32\ Id. at 4506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2021, the EPA proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove portions of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan that
addressed attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.\33\ The EPA proposed to approve
the 2013 base year emissions inventories and disapprove the attainment
demonstration and related elements, including the comprehensive
precursor demonstration, five percent annual emissions reductions
demonstration, best available control measures (BACM) demonstration,
RFP demonstration, quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle emissions
budgets established for 2017, 2020, and 2023. We proposed to disapprove
the attainment demonstration and related elements because certified air
quality data were available that established that the San Joaquin
Valley area did not attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2020, as projected in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. On
November 26, 2021, the EPA finalized the partial approval and partial
disapproval of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS as proposed.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 86 FR 38652.
\34\ 86 FR 67329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the November 26, 2021 disapprovals, California was
required to develop and submit a revised attainment plan for the San
Joaquin Valley area that addressed the applicable CAA requirements,
including the Serious area plan requirements and the requirements of
CAA section 189(d), for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In
accordance with sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2) of the CAA, the
revised plan was required to demonstrate attainment of these NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than 5 years from the date of
the EPA's prior determination that the area failed to attain (i.e., by
November 23, 2021), except that the EPA could extend the attainment
date to a date no later than 10 years from the failure to attain
determination (i.e., to November 23, 2026), ``considering the severity
of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution
control measures.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 81 FR 84481, 84482 (final EPA action determining that the
San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS by the December 31, 2015, Serious area attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2021, CARB submitted the ``Attainment Plan Revision
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision''), adopted by the SJVUAPCD on August 19, 2021, and adopted by
CARB on September 23, 2021.\36\ In the letter accompanying the
submission, CARB clarified that the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
amended the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Letter dated November 8, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9. The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision was
developed jointly by CARB and the District.
\37\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2023, the EPA approved the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP
Revision as a revision to the California SIP, establishing an
applicable attainment date of December 31, 2023, for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 88 FR 86581. As discussed in the EPA's proposal to approve
the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, the attainment date for the
189(d) plan was established consistent with CAA sections 179(d)(3)
and 172(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA Requirements for an Attainment Date Extension
Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the EPA may grant a state's request
to extend the attainment date established under CAA section
172(a)(2)(A) if: ``(1) the State has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation
plan, and (2) in accordance with guidance published by the
Administrator, no more than the minimal number of exceedances of the
relevant national ambient air quality standard has occurred in the area
in the year preceding the Extension Year.'' The EPA may grant a second
1-year extension if these same criteria are met at the end of the first
extension year. The EPA cannot issue more than two one-year extensions
under section 172(a)(2)(C) for a single nonattainment area.
In an August 24, 2016 final rule entitled, ``Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation
Plan Requirements'' (``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule''), the
EPA established regulatory requirements and provided further
interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS,\39\
including guidance on the extension provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas under CAA section 188. Because CAA section 188(d)
is nearly identical to CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the EPA considers the
guidance pertaining to the one-year extension requirements under CAA
section 188(d) to persuasively inform the requirements for a one-year
extension for a particulate matter nonattainment area under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C). Thus, our assessment of the State's extension request
will rely on the guidance for one-year extensions under CAA section
188(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 81 FR 58010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the first criterion for an extension of the
attainment date, the EPA clarified in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule that a state must show that it has ``submitted the
necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control measures in the
submission.'' \40\ The EPA interprets this requirement to mean that a
state must have adopted and be implementing the control measures and
commitments in the approved SIP revisions it has submitted to address
the CAA requirements for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. at 58070.
\41\ See Delaware Dept. of Nat. Resources and Envtl. Control v.
EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that for the
purposes of an attainment date extension, the CAA requires only that
an applying state with jurisdiction over a nonattainment area comply
with the requirements in its applicable SIP, not every requirement
of the Act); see also Vigil v. Leavitt, 381 F.3d 826, 846 (9th Cir.
2004). A state may meet this requirement by certifying its
compliance, and in the absence of such certification, the EPA may
make a determination as to whether the criterion has been met. See
Delaware, 895 F.3d, pp. 101-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the second criterion, the EPA explains in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule that we interpret that ``a state
seeking an attainment date extension for an annual PM2.5
NAAQS would be required to demonstrate that the area had clean data for
that particular standard . . . in the calendar year prior to the
applicable attainment date for the area . . .'' \42\ That is, for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, a state
[[Page 55905]]
would need to show that the annual mean value in the year proceeding
the attainment year (in this case, 2023) did not exceed the 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\ level of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 81 FR 58010, 58071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the EPA finds that a state has satisfied the criteria for an
extension and grants an extension of the attainment date, the EPA must
determine whether the area attained the relevant NAAQS following the
end of the extension year (unless the state requests a second one-year
extension and the EPA finds that the requirements for such extension
are satisfied and extends the attainment date by an additional year).
In the absence of an attainment date extension, upon a determination of
failure to attain by the EPA, the state would be required to develop a
revised attainment plan for the area.
II. The State's Request for an Extension
As discussed in Section I.B of this document, on December 14, 2023,
the EPA approved California's plan to address the Serious area and CAA
section 189(d) plan requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, establishing a December 31, 2023 attainment date. On May 23,
2024, the State of California transmitted a letter to the EPA
requesting that the EPA grant a one-year extension under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C) to the applicable Serious area attainment date for the San
Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024.\43\ In its
request, the State certified that it has complied with all requirements
and commitments pertaining to the area in the approved implementation
plan and that complete, certified monitoring data for the San Joaquin
Valley for 2023 are below the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Letter dated May 23, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's May 23, 2024 extension request includes documentation
in three enclosures in support of its certification that it has
complied with the requirements for an attainment date extension under
CAA section 172(a)(2)(C):
(1) A letter dated May 14, 2024, from Samir Sheikh, Executive
Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S.
Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ``RE: Attainment Date
Extension for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard for the San
Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area;''
(2) A document titled ``Documentation of CARB Having Met
Previous State Implementation Plan Obligations for the 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ PM2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin Valley'' (``2024
CARB Compliance Demonstration''); and
(3) A letter dated April 29, 2024, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Dena Vallano, Manager,
Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA Region 9, with enclosures,
certifying 2023 ambient data collected by State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations and Special Purpose Monitors operated by CARB in
the San Joaquin Valley.
We briefly describe each of these documents in the remainder of
this section and provide more detail as part of our evaluation in
Section III.
The District's May 14, 2024 extension request letter includes a
discussion of the State's SIP submittals to address CAA requirements,
including the control measure requirements under CAA sections 189(b)
and 189(d); the State's submission of quantitative milestone reports
documenting its progress towards attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS; and the District's amendments to Rule 4901
(``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') to address
contingency measure requirements and achieve reductions in
PM2.5 emissions for purposes of meeting the NAAQS. The
District's letter also presents certified ambient air monitoring data
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2023 calendar year, which show that
the annual mean concentration was less than 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e.,
the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) at all monitoring
sites.
The 2024 CARB Compliance Demonstration documents how CARB has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the San
Joaquin Valley for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by addressing
the requirements in each of the SIP submittals for those NAAQS (i.e.,
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the
2018 PM2.5 Plan, and the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision). For
each attainment plan submittal, CARB discusses the control measure and
emissions reductions it committed to in the plan and the actions the
State has taken to meet those commitments (i.e., by adopting the
measures identified in the plan or by adopting substitute measures).
CARB also discusses the measures the State has adopted and submitted to
the EPA to address contingency measure requirements and submissions it
has made to meet its obligations to submit quantitative milestone
reports for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Lastly, in support of the State's assertion that it has met the air
quality criterion for a one-year attainment date extension for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, CARB included with its extension request
a letter certifying 2023 ambient data for the San Joaquin Valley
collected by monitors operated by CARB.
III. The EPA's Evaluation
A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP
The first requirement for an extension of the attainment date under
CAA section 172(a)(2)(C) is a showing that the state has complied with
all requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the
implementation plan. As discussed in Section I.C of this document, the
EPA interprets this requirement to mean that a state must have adopted
and be implementing the control measures and commitments in the SIP
revisions it has submitted to address the CAA requirements for the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS. For the San Joaquin Valley for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has approved control
measure requirements and commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
and the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision to the 2018 PM2.5 Plan
into the California SIP. Therefore, in the remainder of this section,
we describe the State's and District's implementation of the control
measures and commitments in those plans.
1. 2008 PM2.5 Plan
The specific State and District commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
as follows:
(1) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures identified
in Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South
Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP
Revisions,'' dated April 28, 2011 (``2011 Progress Report''), in
accordance with the timetable specified therein; \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB Resolution No. 07-28,
Attachment B (September 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34 (April
24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011); see also
76 FR 69896, 69921-69922, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the
rules and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan'' in accordance
with the timetable specified in Table 6-2 of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, as amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these
rules and measures to CARB for transmittal to the EPA as SIP
revisions; \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (June 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896
at 69921, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emissions reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions by 2014 as described in CARB
Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and 2011;
\46\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55906]]
(4) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd
of NOX emissions reductions and 0.92 tpd of
SOX emissions reductions by 2014, as described in Table
6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c, respectively, of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2).
As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA's final action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied
substantial portions of these control measure and emissions reduction
commitments. Specifically, CARB had proposed action on six of the seven
measures it had committed to propose for Board consideration, leaving
one additional measure that was scheduled for proposal in 2013 (``New
Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats'').\48\ The District had
adopted 12 of the 13 measures it had committed to adopt and implement,
leaving one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014,
amendments to Rule 4905 (``National Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central
Furnaces'').\49\ Finally, together CARB and the District had achieved
all of the SOX emissions reduction commitments and
substantial portions of the direct PM2.5 and NOX
emissions reductions commitments through implementation of State and
District control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emissions reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 76 FR 69896, 69922, Table 2 (``2007 State Strategy Defined
Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status'').
\49\ Id. at 69921, Table 1 (``San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule
Commitments'').
\50\ Id. at 69923, Table 4 (``Reductions Needed for Attainment
Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, CARB submitted a staff report, entitled ``Review of
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan'' (``2015
CARB Compliance Demonstration''), that contains CARB's demonstration
that both CARB and the District had satisfied the commitments in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan that remained outstanding as of November 9,
2011.\51\ As discussed in the 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, on
January 22, 2015, the District adopted amendments to Rule 4905 and on
April 7, 2015, CARB submitted this rule to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP.\52\ Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for
Board consideration, and the Board adopted, new emissions standards for
recreational boats entitled ``Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine Watercraft.'' \53\ These State
and District rulemaking actions satisfied the last remaining control
measure commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. All of these
measures have been submitted to the EPA and approved into the
California SIP.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ CARB, ``Review of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan,'' released April 20, 2015 (``2015 CARB
Compliance Demonstration''), transmitted by email dated February 5,
2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region
IX, pp. 17-22 and Appendix B.
\52\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, p. 19, Table 7, and
letter dated April 7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9
(transmitting air district regulations to the EPA as California SIP
revisions).
\53\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, p. 20, Table 8 and
CARB, Resolution 15-3, ``Evaporative Emissions Control Requirements
for Spark-Ignition Marine Watercraft,'' February 19, 2015, available
at https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/simw2015/simw2015.htm.
\54\ See Technical Support Document, EPA General Evaluation, San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, Table III-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the remaining emissions reduction commitments, the
2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, as amended by CARB's ``Technical
Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan,'' identified State and District control measures
that, according to CARB, achieved emissions reductions beyond those
already credited towards the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and satisfied
the State's remaining 2014 emissions reduction obligations.\55\ The EPA
previously determined that the State and District measures identified
in the State's demonstration achieved a total of 12.97 tpd of
NOX emissions reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions. These reductions had not
previously been credited as part of the attainment demonstration in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan and therefore could be credited toward the
State's outstanding obligation to achieve 12.9 tpd of NOX
emissions reductions and 3.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions by the beginning of 2014.\56\ Therefore, we concluded that
the State had complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining
to the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in the implementation plan
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 2015 CARB Compliance Demonstration, pp. 21-22, and CARB,
``Technical Clarifications to the 2015 San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' transmitted by email
dated February 5, 2020, from Michael Benjamin, CARB to Meredith
Kurpius, EPA Region IX, pp. 1-4.
\56\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). Also see the EPA's proposed
rulemaking at 85 FR 17382, 17405-17407 (March 27, 2020).
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision
The control strategy in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision was based
primarily on ongoing emissions reductions from baseline control
measures (i.e., State and District regulations adopted prior to the
development of the plan that continue to achieve emissions reductions
through the projected attainment year and beyond).\58\ However, the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision also identified several additional control
measures to provide for expeditious attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\59\ These measures include three regulatory
measures adopted by CARB or the District following development of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan and a commitment by CARB to adopt and
implement an additional regulatory measure to meet an enforceable
commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ These baseline control measures include many EPA-approved
regulations for on-road and non-road mobile sources, as well as
District measures that limit NOX and PM2.5
emissions from stationary and area sources. See discussion in the
EPA's July 14, 2023, proposed approval of the plan (88 FR 45276,
45297-45299).
\59\ Id. at 45299-45300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three regulatory measures adopted following development of the
2018 PM2.5 Plan include CARB's ``Lower Opacity Limits for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles'' regulation,\60\ CARB's ``Amended Warranty
Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles'' regulation,\61\ and the
District's 2019 amendments to Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and
Wood Burning Heaters'').\62\ As discussed in our July 14, 2023 proposal
to approve the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, all three of these
measures have been adopted by the State and submitted to the EPA for
SIP approval.\63\ The EPA approved the District's 2019 amendments to
Rule 4901 on July 22, 2020,\64\ and as part of our final rule approving
the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, we credited this measure with annual
average emissions reductions of 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 for
the purpose of attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 31, 2023.\65\ The EPA did not credit CARB's Lower Opacity
Limits for Heavy-Duty Vehicles regulation or the Amended Warranty
Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles regulation with any particular
amount of emissions
[[Page 55907]]
reductions toward attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
for the reasons discussed in our proposal; however, we noted that the
relatively small quantity of emissions reductions from these measures
would not materially affect the attainment demonstration for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Initially adopted via CARB Resolution 18-20 (May 25, 2018).
CARB Resolution 18-20 was repealed on July 26, 2018 via CARB
Resolution 18-28, which included a modified version of the
regulation to address public comments. Per direction from CARB
Resolution 18-28, the regulation was adopted via Executive Order
R19-001 (March 12, 2019).
\61\ CARB Resolution 18-24, June 28, 2018.
\62\ SJVUAPCD Resolution 19-06-22, June 20, 2019.
\63\ 88 FR 45276, 45299-45300.
\64\ 85 FR 44206.
\65\ 88 FR 86581. See also the discussion regarding this measure
in our July 14, 2023, proposed approval (88 FR 45276, 45299).
\66\ 88 FR, 45276, 45300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision was to
achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 3.0 tpd of NOX and
0.04 tpd of direct PM2.5 (referred to as an ``aggregate
tonnage commitment'') through adoption of CARB's ``Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' (``Heavy-Duty I/M'') (referred to
as a ``control measure commitment'') and/or substitute measures.\67\
CARB adopted the Heavy-Duty I/M measure on December 9, 2021, fulfilling
CARB's control measure commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.
On December 14, 2022, CARB submitted the measure to the EPA as a
revision to the California SIP.68 69 Implementation of the
program began on January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ CARB Resolution 21-21, September 23, 2021, p. 6; and August
2021 Staff Report, pp. 4-5.
\68\ Letter dated December 7, 2022, from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D.,
Executive Officer, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, with enclosures.
\69\ At the time that this document was being prepared, the EPA
had not yet proposed action on the Heavy-Duty I/M measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the baseline and additional measures discussed
herein, CARB noted in its ``Staff Report, Proposed SIP Revision for the
15 ug/m\3\ Annual PM2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin
Valley,'' (``August 2021 Staff Report'') accompanying the 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ SIP Revision that the ``Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural
Equipment Incentive Projects'' (``Valley Incentive Measure'') was
expected to provide for further emissions reductions by the 2023
attainment year.\70\ The Valley Incentive Measure includes commitments
by CARB to monitor, assess, and report on emissions reductions, and to
achieve emissions reductions of 5.1 tpd of NOX and 0.3 tpd
of direct PM2.5 from the 2025 baseline inventory in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan by December 31, 2024.\71\ The EPA finalized a
partial approval of this measure on December 16, 2021, wherein the EPA
credited 4.83 tpd of NOX and 0.24 tpd of direct
PM2.5 towards CARB's tonnage commitments for 2024 (for
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).\72\ While the State
did not take credit for any emissions reductions from this measure in
the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, it asserted in the August 2021 Staff
Report that a large portion of those emissions reductions would in fact
be achieved by 2023.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ August 2021 Staff Report, pp. 3-4.
\71\ EPA Region IX ``Technical Support Document for EPA's
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan California
Air Resources Board Resolution 19-26 San Joaquin Valley Agricultural
Equipment Incentive Measure,'' February 2020, pp. 4-5, 24-25, and
31.
\72\ 86 FR 73106 (December 27, 2021). The EPA approved the Carl
Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (``Carl
Moyer Program'') and Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for
Emission Reductions Program'' (``FARMER Program''). The EPA deferred
action on the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP) portion of the Valley Incentive Measure.
\73\ CARB's August 2021 Staff Report, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address how California has met the outstanding aggregate tonnage
commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, CARB provided updates
on implementation of the Heavy-Duty I/M program and the Valley
Incentive Measure in the 2024 CARB Compliance Demonstration. For the
Heavy-Duty I/M program, CARB provided a summary of the vehicle
screening, inspections, and citations issued in San Joaquin Valley
cities in 2023.\74\ CARB notes that these enforcement efforts led to a
reduction in emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in the San Joaquin
Valley. However, CARB explains that because of the ``time-sensitive
nature of documenting that we achieved the CARB emission reduction
commitment,'' it is relying on the reductions achieved by a substitute
measure, the Valley Incentive Measure, to demonstrate that it has met
the aggregate tonnage commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 2024 CARB Compliance Demonstration, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2024, CARB submitted the ``Amendments to the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision and Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure
for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments'') for parallel processing.\75\ The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments revises the State's aggregate tonnage commitment in the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, amends the Valley Incentive Measure, and
demonstrates that projects implemented under the SIP-approved Valley
Incentive Measure achieved specified amounts of reductions in emissions
of NOX and PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley area
in the year 2023. In a separate current action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, credit the emissions
reductions of 5.0 tpd of NOX and 0.27 tpd of direct
PM2.5 from the Valley Incentive Measure in the year 2023,
and formally substitute the Valley Incentive Measure for the Heavy-Duty
I/M measure as the measure satisfying the aggregate tonnage commitment
for the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.\76\ In this action, the EPA is
proposing to find that, upon final approval of the 15 [micro]g/m\3\
Plan Amendments, the State will have adequately documented that it has
complied with its commitment to achieve 3.0 tpd of NOX and
0.04 tpd of direct PM2.5 emissions reductions by the
beginning of 2023. Thus, based on the EPA's review of the requirements
and commitments pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan and 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision, the supporting
information in the State's extension request, and additional
information discussed herein, we find that the State has complied with
all requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the
applicable SIP. We therefore propose to find that the area meets the
first criterion to qualify for a one-year attainment date extension
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Letter dated June 21, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D.,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, with enclosure.
\76\ The EPA is proposing to approve the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Air Quality Data
As discussed in Section I.C of this document, the second
requirement for an extension of the attainment date under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C) is a showing that the area had clean data for the relevant
standard in the calendar year preceding the applicable attainment date.
Such determination is typically based upon complete, quality-assured
data gathered at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database. Data from ambient air monitors operated by
state/local agencies in compliance with the EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that
these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining compliance
with the NAAQS.\77\ The EPA reviews all data to determine the area's
air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N. Under
EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7 and in accordance with Appendix N, the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with the rounding
conventions in 40 CFR part 50,
[[Page 55908]]
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at each
eligible monitoring site within the area. Data completeness
requirements for a given year are met when at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See 40 CFR 50.7; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L; 40 CFR part
53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
\78\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. The monitoring requirements are specified
in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are applicable to state, and
where delegated, local air monitoring agencies that operate criteria
pollutant monitors. The regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish
specific requirements for operating air quality surveillance networks
to measure ambient concentrations of PM2.5, including
requirements for measurement methods, network design, quality assurance
procedures, and, in the case of large urban areas, the minimum number
of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS.
In section 4.7 of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for PM2.5 to operate at
SLAMS. SLAMS produce data comparable to the NAAQS, and therefore, the
monitor must be an approved federal reference method (FRM) or federal
equivalent method (FEM). The minimum number of SLAMS required is
described in section 4.7.1 and can be met by either filter-based or
continuous FRMs or FEMs. The monitoring regulations also provide that
each core-based statistical area must operate a minimum number of
PM2.5 continuous monitors; \79\ however, this requirement
can be met by either an FEM or a non-FEM continuous monitor, and the
continuous monitors can be located with other SLAMS or at a different
location. Consequently, the monitoring requirements for
PM2.5 can be met with filter-based FRMs/FEMs, continuous
FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a combination of monitors at each
required SLAMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.7.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During 2023, ambient PM2.5 concentration data were
collected at a total of 18 sites within the San Joaquin Valley: 5 sites
in Fresno County; 3 sites in Kern County; 2 sites each in Kings,
Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties; and 1 site each in Madera
and Tulare counties. The District operates 12 of these sites while CARB
operates 6 of these sites. All of the sites are designated SLAMS for
PM2.5.\80\ The primary monitors are FRMs at 1 of the 18
sites and beta attenuation monitor FEMs at 17 of the 18 sites. Overall,
the District's PM2.5 monitoring network meets, and in
several metropolitan statistical areas exceeds, the PM2.5
minimum monitoring requirements for the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ There are a number of other PM2.5 monitoring
sites within the valley, including other sites operated by the
District, the National Park Service, and certain Indian tribes, but
the data collected from these sites are non-regulatory and not
eligible for comparison with the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the PM2.5 monitoring network as
summarized above, we find that the monitoring network in the San
Joaquin Valley is adequate for the purpose of collecting ambient
PM2.5 concentration data for use in determining whether the
San Joaquin Valley had clean data for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS during the 2023 calendar year.
Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans to the EPA.\81\ Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and
the District are the agencies responsible for assuring that the area
meets air quality monitoring requirements. CARB and SJVUAPCD submit
monitoring network plans to the EPA annually. These plans describe and
discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40
CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With
respect to PM2.5, we have found that the CARB and SJVUAPCD
annual network plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part
58.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1).
\82\ Letter dated October 30, 2023, from Dena Vallano, Manager,
Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA Region IX, to Sylvia
Vanderspek, Manager, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB; and letter
dated October 31, 2023, from Dena Vallano, Manager, Monitoring and
Analysis Section, EPA Region IX, to Jon Klassen, Director, Air
Quality Science, SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, that data collected at all SLAMS and at all FRM and FEM special
purpose monitor stations meet the EPA's quality assurance requirements.
In doing so, monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of
ambient concentration and quality assurance data are submitted to AQS
and that the ambient concentration data are accurate. CARB annually
certifies that the data the agency submits to AQS are quality assured,
including the data collected at monitoring sites in the San Joaquin
Valley.\83\ SJVUAPCD does the same for data submitted to AQS from
monitoring sites operated by the District.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ For example, see letter dated April 29, 2024, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Dena
Vallano, Manager, Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA Region 9,
with enclosures, certifying calendar year 2023 ambient air quality
data and quality assurance data.
\84\ For example, see letter dated April 23, 2024, from Robert
Gilles, Program Manager, SJVUAPCD, to Matt Lakin, Director, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, with attachments, certifying
calendar year 2023 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to data completeness, we determined that the data
collected by CARB and the District meet the quarterly completeness
criterion for all four quarters of 2023 at most of the PM2.5
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. More specifically, among
the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites from which regulatory data are
available, only the data from Stockton-University (AQS ID: 06-077-1003)
did not meet the 75 percent completeness criterion for one quarter;
\85\ however, the data from the site are sufficient nonetheless to
produce a valid design value for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the rules governing design value validity in 40 CFR part
50, Appendix N, section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ EPA AQS Combined Site Sample Values, AMP355, accessed May
17, 2024 (User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID: 2193827).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA evaluated data from calendar year 2023 to determine whether
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area met the air
quality criterion for granting a one-year extension of the applicable
attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS from
December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C). Table 1 shows the PM2.5 annual mean at each of
the 18 SLAMS monitoring sites for 2023.
Table 1--2023 PM2.5 Annual Mean for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual mean
County Site name Site (AQS ID) ([micro]g/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................ Fresno-Garland.................. 06-019-0011 10.5
Fresno........................................ Tranquillity.................... 06-019-2009 4.8
Fresno........................................ Fresno-Foundry.................. 06-019-2016 12.5
[[Page 55909]]
Fresno........................................ Clovis-Villa.................... 06-019-5001 8.6
Fresno........................................ Fresno-Pacific.................. 06-019-5025 12.6
Kern.......................................... Bakersfield-Golden/M-St......... 06-029-0010 13.7
Kern.......................................... Bakersfield-California.......... 06-029-0014 12.0
Kern.......................................... Bakersfield-Airport (Planz)..... 06-029-0016 12.5
Kings......................................... Corcoran-Patterson.............. 06-031-0004 10.1
Kings......................................... Hanford-Irwin................... 06-031-1004 12.5
Merced........................................ Merced-M St..................... 06-047-2510 9.6
Merced........................................ Merced-Coffee................... 06-047-0003 8.4
San Joaquin................................... Stockton-University Park........ 06-077-1003 \a\10.8
San Joaquin................................... Manteca......................... 06-077-2010 7.9
Stanislaus.................................... Modesto-14th Street............. 06-099-0005 10.5
Stanislaus.................................... Turlock......................... 06-099-0006 10.1
Madera........................................ Madera-City..................... 06-039-2010 9.9
Tulare........................................ Visalia-W Ashland Avenue........ 06-107-2003 11.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Quarter 2 does not meet completeness criteria.
Source: EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, accessed May 17, 2024 (User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID: 2193813).
Table 1 shows that the annual mean for the 2023 calendar year was
less than 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., the level of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS) at each of the 18 SLAMS monitoring sites in the
San Joaquin Valley. Thus, the EPA proposes to find that the area meets
the air quality criterion to qualify for a one-year attainment date
extension under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.\86\
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 directs federal government agencies
to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies
perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people
of color and other underserved groups,\87\ and Executive Order 14008
directs federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities
to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and
climate impacts on disadvantaged communities.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
\87\ 86 FR 7009 (January 25, 2021).
\88\ 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA gives the EPA the discretion to extend an area's applicable
attainment date by one year upon application by a state if the state
has met the two criteria under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C) (see Section
I.C of this document). To identify environmental burdens and
susceptible populations in underserved communities in the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area and to better understand the context of our
proposed action on these communities, we rely on the EPA's August 2022
screening-level analysis for PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley
using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool
(``EJSCREEN''). 89 90 The results of this analysis are being
provided for informational and transparency purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing each of the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley. We note that the indicators for Kern County are for
the entire county. While the indicators might have slightly
different numbers for the San Joaquin Valley portion of the county,
most of the county's population is in the San Joaquin Valley
portion, and thus the differences would be small. These indicators
are included in EJSCREEN reports that are available in the
rulemaking docket for this action.
\90\ EPA Region IX, ``EJSCREEN Analysis for the Eight Counties
of the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area,'' August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our screening-level analysis indicates that the ``Demographic
Index'' for each of the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley is
above the national average, ranging from 48 percent in Stanislaus
County to 61 percent in Tulare County, compared to 36 percent
nationally. The Demographic Index is the average of an area's percent
minority and percent low-income populations, i.e., the two populations
explicitly named in Executive Order 12898.\91\ All eight counties are
above the national average for demographic indices of ``Linguistically
Isolated Population'' and ``Population with Less than High School
Education.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics
cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and traffic proximity and volume)
and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). The value for a particular
indicator measures how the community of interest compares with the
state, the EPA region, or the national average. For example, if a
given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that
only 5 percent of the U.S. population has a higher value than the
average person in the location being analyzed. EJSCREEN also reports
EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental
indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional
information about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ
indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental
Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' Section 2 (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to pollution, all eight counties are at or above the
97th percentile nationally for the PM2.5 index and seven of
the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley are at or above the 90th
percentile nationally for the PM2.5 EJ index, which is a
combination of the Demographic Index and the PM2.5 index.
Most counties are also above the 80th percentile for each of 11
additional EJ indices included in the EPA's EJSCREEN analysis. In
addition, several counties are above the 90th percentile for certain EJ
indices, including, for example, the Ozone EJ Index (Fresno, Kern,
Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties), the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) Respiratory Hazard EJ Index (Madera and Tulare
counties), and the Wastewater Discharge Indicator EJ Index (Merced, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties).\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Notably, Tulare County is above the 90th percentile for 6
of the 12 EJ indices in the EPA's EJSCREEN analysis, including the
PM2.5 EJ Index, which is the highest value among all San
Joaquin Valley counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action would grant an extension of attainment date
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Information on the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and its relationship to negative health
impacts can be found at 62 FR 38652
[[Page 55910]]
(July 18, 1997). We expect that this action will generally have neutral
environmental and health impacts on all populations in the San Joaquin
Valley, including people of color and low-income populations. This
action would not worsen existing air quality and there is no
information in the record indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a particular group of people.
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
In response to a request from the State of California on May 23,
2024, the EPA is proposing to grant a one-year extension to the
applicable Serious area attainment date for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
The proposed action to extend the applicable Serious attainment date
for this nonattainment area is based on the EPA's evaluation of air
quality monitoring data and the extension request submitted by the
State of California and our determination that the State has satisfied
the two statutory criteria for a 1-year extension under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C).
If finalized, this action would extend the applicable Serious area
attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from
December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024. If we finalize this proposal,
consistent with CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the area will remain a
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area with an applicable Serious
area attainment date of December 31, 2024. Consistent with CAA section
172(a)(2)(C), the EPA will determine whether the area attained the
standard within six months following the applicable attainment date.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.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 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. This action merely proposes to approve a state request as
meeting federal requirements and imposes no new requirements.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This action merely proposes to approve a state request for an
attainment date extension, and this action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law. Approval of a state's request for an attainment
date extension does not create any new requirements and does not
directly regulate any entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
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. Pursuant
to the CAA, this action merely proposes to approve a state request for
an attainment date extension.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to approve
a state request for an attainment date extension as meeting federal
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people
should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences
of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
Under the CAA, an extension of the attainment date under section
[[Page 55911]]
172(a)(2)(C) does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on
sources beyond those imposed by state law. The State did not evaluate
EJ considerations as part of its documentation supporting its request
for an attainment date extension; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
performed an EJ analysis, as is described above in the section titled,
``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was included in
this document for the purpose of providing additional context and
information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the
action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action
is expected to have a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected
area. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which
this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898
of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 27, 2024.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-14617 Filed 7-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
