[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69448-69454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24084]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0494; FRL-9953-65-Region 9]


Findings of Failure To Attain the 1997 PM2.5 Standards; 
California; San Joaquin Valley

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
determine that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area failed to 
attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards by the 
December 31, 2015 ``Serious'' area attainment date. This proposed 
determination is based upon monitored air quality data from 2013 
through 2015. If the EPA finalizes this determination as proposed, the 
State of California will be required to submit a revision to the 
California State Implementation Plan that, among other elements, 
provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 
standards and for a five percent annual reduction in the emissions of 
direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor pollutant.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0494 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Rory Mays 
at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3227, [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 Designations, Classifications, and 
Attainment Dates for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
II. Proposed Determination and Consequences
    A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
    B. Monitoring Network Considerations
    C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination
    D. Consequences for Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
Failing To Attain Standards by Attainment Date
III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA 
has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as 
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be 
established.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the EPA replaced the original 
standard for particulate matter, measured as total suspended 
particulate matter (TSP) (i.e., particles roughly 30 micrometers or 
less), with new standards that replaced TSP as the indicator for 
particulate matter with a new indicator that includes only those 
particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 
10 micrometers (PM10).
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), the EPA revised the standards for 
particulate matter by establishing new standards for particles with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers 
(PM2.5). The EPA established primary and secondary annual 
and 24-hour standards for PM2.5.\1\ The annual primary and 
secondary standards were set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations, and the 24-hour primary and secondary standards were 
set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th 
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 
monitoring site within an area. See 40 CFR 50.7. Collectively, we refer 
herein to the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS as the 
``1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' or ``1997 PM2.5 standards.'' 
\2\ The EPA

[[Page 69449]]

established these standards after considering substantial evidence from 
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are 
associated with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations above 
these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
    \2\ On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level 
of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and on 
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), the EPA revised the primary annual 
PM2.5 standard to a level of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. We recently 
published a final rule revoking the 1997 primary annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS for areas designated (or redesignated) 
attainment for that standard and revising the regulations governing 
implementation of the PM2.5 standards. See 81 FR 58010 
(August 24, 2016). However, because the San Joaquin Valley remains 
designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual primary 
PM2.5 standard, the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 
standard will remain in effect in the San Joaquin Valley under the 
EPA's recent PM2.5 implementation rule until such time as 
the area is redesignated to attainment for that standard. Thus, even 
though the EPA has lowered the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 
standards, the original 1997 PM2.5 standards remain in 
effect in the San Joaquin Valley and represent the standards for 
which today's proposed determination are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory 
symptoms. There is also 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 emitted directly into the atmosphere as a 
solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or direct 
PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of 
various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary 
PM2.5).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 15340, 15342 (March 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. San Joaquin Valley Designations, Classifications, and Attainment 
Dates for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, the 
EPA published 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.\5\ These 
designations became effective April 5, 2005.\6\ The EPA designated the 
San Joaquin Valley area as nonattainment for both the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standards and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 
standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 40 CFR 81.305. The 2001-2003 design values for the San 
Joaquin Valley were 21.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual standard and 82 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour standard. See EPA design value workbook 
dated August 28, 2014, worksheets ``Table 3a'' and ``Table 3b.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\8\ The area is home to four 
million people and is the nation's leading agricultural region. 
Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles 
wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, 
the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to 
the east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of 
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under state law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
``State'') is the Governor's designee for adoption and submittal of the 
state implementation plan (SIP) and SIP revisions to the EPA in 
compliance with CAA requirements. CARB is also generally responsible 
under state law for the regulation of mobile emission sources. Local 
air pollution control districts are responsible for regulation of 
stationary emission sources. In the San Joaquin Valley, regional air 
quality plans are developed by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') with input from 
CARB and typically rely on both mobile source control measures for 
which CARB is responsible and stationary source control measures for 
which the District is responsible. Once the District adopts a regional 
air quality plan, the plan is submitted to CARB for adoption as part of 
the California SIP and submittal to the EPA.
    Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to 
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\9\ We refer to these 
submissions collectively as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On 
November 9, 2011, the EPA approved all elements of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which the 
EPA disapproved.\10\ As part of that action and pursuant to CAA section 
172(a)(2)(A), the EPA granted California's request for an extension of 
the attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley area to April 5, 
2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
    \10\ Id. at 69924.
    \11\ Id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment date for 
a nonattainment area is ``the date by which attainment can be 
achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five 
years from the date such area was designated nonattainment,'' except 
that EPA may extend the attainment date as appropriate for a period 
no greater than ten years from the date of designation as 
nonattainment, considering the severity of nonattainment and the 
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. CAA 
section 172(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 2013 court decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA 
concluded that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 
standards solely pursuant to the general implementation requirements of 
subpart 1, without also considering the requirements specific to 
PM10 nonattainment areas in subpart 4, part D of title I of 
the CAA.\12\ Consistent with the NRDC decision, on June 2, 2014, the 
EPA classified all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 or the 
2006 PM2.5 standards as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas 
under subpart 4.\13\ Because this rulemaking did not affect any action 
that the EPA had previously taken under section 110(k) of the Act on a 
SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the April 5, 2015 
attainment date that the EPA had approved for the San Joaquin Valley 
area in November 2011 remained in effect.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``NRDC'').
    \13\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). As part of this rulemaking, EPA 
established a December 31, 2014 deadline for states to submit 
attainment-related and nonattainment new source review SIP elements 
required for PM2.5 nonattainment areas pursuant to 
subpart 4. Id.
    \14\ Id. at 31569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 7, 2015, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley area 
as a ``Serious'' PM2.5 nonattainment area under subpart 4, 
based on the EPA's determination that the area could not practicably 
attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards by the April 5, 2015 
attainment date.\15\ This reclassification was based upon the EPA's 
evaluation of ambient air quality data from the 2003-2014 period, 
including the 2012-2014 design value, which indicated that it was not 
practicable for certain monitoring sites within the San Joaquin Valley 
area to show PM2.5 design values at or below the level of 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
    \16\ Id. at 18529; see also proposed rule, 80 FR 1482 (January 
12, 2015). Air quality data for 2012-2014 indicated that the highest 
monitors in the San Joaquin Valley area had design values of 19.7 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the annual standard and 71 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a consequence of reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 
nonattainment area, the San Joaquin Valley area became subject to a new 
attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2) and the requirement to 
submit a Serious area plan that satisfies the requirements of part D of 
title I of the Act, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\17\ Under subpart 4, the attainment date 
for an area classified as Serious is as expeditiously as

[[Page 69450]]

practicable, but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year 
following designation. As explained in the EPA's final reclassification 
action, the Serious area plan for the San Joaquin Valley must include 
provisions to assure that the best available control measures for the 
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 
shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the area is 
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)), and a demonstration (including 
air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2015, which 
is the latest permissible attainment date under CAA section 
188(c)(2).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 80 FR 18258 at 18530-18532.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the December 31, 2015 outermost attainment deadline for the 
San Joaquin Valley area under section 188(c)(2), the EPA noted its 
expectation that the State would adopt and submit a Serious area plan 
for the San Joaquin Valley well before the statutory SIP submission 
deadlines in CAA section 189(b)(2).\19\ The EPA also noted that, in 
light of the available ambient air quality data and the short amount of 
time available before the December 31, 2015 attainment date, California 
could choose to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area 
attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e) simultaneously with its 
submission of a Serious area plan for the area.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 18531.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California submitted its 1997 PM2.5 Serious area plan 
for the San Joaquin Valley in two submittals 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). The EPA proposed to approve most of the San Joaquin Valley 1997 
PM2.5 Serious area plan, to conditionally approve the Plan's 
quantitative milestones, to disapprove the plan's contingency measures, 
and to grant the requested attainment date extensions.\21\ We received 
adverse comments on our proposal on several aspects of the plan and its 
control measures. Upon further evaluation of the plan and after 
consideration of the comments, the EPA decided it could no longer 
support an action to extend the attainment date for the San Joaquin 
Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016).
    \22\ See U.S. EPA, Final rule, ``Denial of Request for Extension 
of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; California; San 
Joaquin Valley Serious Nonattainment Area,'' to be published in the 
same edition of the Federal Register as this proposed rule, and U.S. 
EPA Fact Sheet, ``San Joaquin Valley Fine Particulate Matter,'' June 
29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the EPA has not approved the requested attainment date 
extensions, the applicable attainment date remains December 31, 2015 
for the San Joaquin Valley with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS. As discussed in section II of this proposed rule, the EPA must 
determine, based on air quality data as of the attainment date, whether 
an area attained the applicable NAAQS by its attainment date.

II. Proposed Determination and Consequences

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

    Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the CAA require the EPA to 
determine whether a PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the 
applicable PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment 
date, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date.
    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 
PM2.5 standards is generally based upon the most recent 
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established 
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area 
and entered into 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 the attainment status of areas. 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. All data are reviewed to 
determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 
50, Appendix N.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, Sec.  50.7 and in 
accordance with Appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5 standards 
are met when the design value is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N) 
at each eligible monitoring site within the area.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The annual PM2.5 standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual mean concentration, and the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the annual standard design value 
at each eligible monitoring site is less than or equal to 15.0 
[micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.7 and in 
accordance with Appendix N, the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards 
are met when the design value is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\ 
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N) at 
each eligible monitoring site within the area.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 
3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values 
recorded at each eligible monitoring site, and the 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 24-hour standard design 
value at each such monitoring site is less than or equal to 65 
[micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Monitoring Network Considerations

    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. Our monitoring requirements are specified 
by regulation in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are applicable to 
state, and where delegated, local air monitoring agencies that operate 
criteria pollutant monitors. Our 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 that are eligible for comparison with the 
NAAQS, and therefore, the monitor must be an approved federal reference 
method (FRM), federal equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional 
method (ARM). 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 (section 4.7.2); 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.

[[Page 69451]]

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.
    Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit Annual Network 
Plans for ambient air monitoring networks for approval by the EPA. 
Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and the District are the agencies 
responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring 
requirements. The District submits annual monitoring network plans to 
the EPA that describe the various monitoring sites operated by the 
District as well as those operated by CARB within the San Joaquin 
Valley. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, 
as required under 40 CFR 58.10. The most recent plan submitted by the 
District is the 2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan, dated August 28, 
2015. The EPA regularly reviews these Annual Network Plans for 
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
58. On December 28, 2015, the EPA approved those portions of the 2015 
Air Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to the adequacy of the network 
for PM2.5 monitoring purposes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Letter dated December 28, 2015, from Meredith Kurpius, 
Manager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, 
Director of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 2013-2015 period, PM2.5 ambient concentration 
data that is eligible for use in determining whether an area has 
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS were collected at a total of 17 
sites within the San Joaquin Valley: four sites in Fresno County; three 
sites in Kern County; two sites each in Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, and 
Stanislaus counties; and one site each in Madera and Tulare counties. 
The District operates 10 of these sites while CARB operates seven of 
the sites. Fourteen of the sites are designated SLAMS for 
PM2.5. Three of the sites are designated as special purpose 
monitors (i.e., the Merced (Coffee Street), Tranquility, and Hanford 
sites), but the PM2.5 data collected there are eligible for 
use in determining PM2.5 NAAQS compliance due to the 
duration of monitoring at the site and the use of FRM or FEM monitors 
consistent with EPA quality assurance requirements and siting 
criteria.\26\ The primary monitors are FRMs at 11 of the 17 sites and 
beta attenuation monitor FEMs at six of the 17 sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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 use in determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has 
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the PM2.5 monitoring network as 
summarized above, we find that 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 attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
December 31, 2015 attainment date.

C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination

    Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual 
basis, data collected at all SLAMS and at all FRM, FEM, and ARM SPM 
stations that meet EPA quality assurance requirements. In doing so, 
monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of ambient 
concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to 
AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate to the best of 
her or his knowledge. CARB annually certifies that the data the agency 
submits to AQS are quality assured, including data collected by CARB at 
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley.\27\ SJVUAPCD does the same 
for data submitted to AQS from monitoring sites operated by the 
District.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer 
Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth 
Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, certifying 
calendar year 2015 ambient air quality data and quality assurance 
data, dated May 10, 2016.
    \28\ See, e.g., letter from Jon Klassen, Program Manager, 
SJVUAPCD, letter to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA 
Region 9, certifying calendar year 2015 ambient air quality data and 
quality assurance data, dated May 9, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) require the 
EPA to determine whether a PM2.5 nonattainment area attained 
the applicable PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment 
date, based on the area's air quality ``as of the attainment date.'' 
For the San Joaquin Valley, for reasons discussed above, the applicable 
attainment date is December 31, 2015 with respect to the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because determinations of PM2.5 
NAAQS compliance, in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, are 
based on three calendar years of data, to determine the San Joaquin 
Valley's air quality as of December 31, 2015, we must review the data 
collected during the three-year period immediately preceding December 
31, 2015, i.e., January 1, 2013-December 31, 2015.
    Thus, we verified that the data for the 2013-2015 period have been 
certified by the relevant monitoring agencies, and then we reviewed the 
data for completeness. We note above the most recent annual data 
certifications from CARB and the District. With respect to 
completeness, we determined that the data collected by CARB and the 
District meet the quarterly completeness criterion for all 12 quarters 
of the three-year period at most of the PM2.5 monitoring 
sites in the San Joaquin Valley.
    More specifically, among the 17 PM2.5 monitoring sites 
from which regulatory data are available, the data from four of the 
sites did not meet the 75% completeness criterion (for each quarter); 
however, the data from all but one site (Bakersfield--Golden State 
Highway) are sufficient nonetheless to produce a valid design value for 
either the annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the rules governing design value 
validity in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, sections 4.1 and 4.2. We note 
that monitors with incomplete data in one or more quarters may still 
produce valid design values if the conditions for applying one of the 
EPA's data substitution tests are met.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b) for the 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and section 4.2(b) for the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Each year the EPA produces a workbook 
identifying PM2.5 monitors with valid design values 
taking into account the data substitution tests set forth in 40 CFR 
part 50, Appendix N, section 4 where appropriate. The workbook 
design values reflect the concentration data input to AQS, but the 
design values calculated therein differ for some monitors from the 
design values calculated by AQS because at this time only the 
workbook design values accurately accounts for the two data 
substitution tests set forth in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 
4.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 and Table 2 show the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
design values, respectively, at each of the 17 monitoring sites within 
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the relevant three-year 
period (2013-2015). The tables show that the annual PM2.5 
design values for the 2013-2015 period are greater than 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ at eight of the sites and that the 24-hour PM2.5 design 
values are greater than 65 [micro]g/m\3\ at four of the sites.

[[Page 69452]]



           Table 1--2013-2015 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Annual Mean ([micro]g/m\3\)        2013-2015
                                                             ---------------------------------------    Annual
                                                                                                        design
              General location                Site  (AQS ID)                                            values
                                                                  2013         2014         2015      ([micro]g/
                                                                                                        m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County:
    Fresno-Pacific..........................     06-019-5025         15.9         13.8         14.1         14.6
    Fresno--Garland.........................     06-019-0011         16.8         15.1         14.4         15.4
    Clovis..................................     06-019-5001         15.9         14.8         15.0         15.2
    Tranquility \a\.........................     06-019-2009          8.3          Inc         10.0          8.7
Kern County:
    Bakersfield--Planz Road.................     06-029-0016         22.8         21.6         17.9         20.8
    Bakersfield--California Ave.............     06-029-0014         20.0         18.6         16.3         18.3
    Bakersfield--Golden State Highway.......     06-029-0010          Inc          Inc         16.7          Inv
Kings County:
    Corcoran \a\ \b\........................     06-031-0004         15.6         15.4          Inc         22.2
    Hanford.................................     06-031-1004         18.2         17.5         16.6         17.4
Madera County:
    Madera--Avenue 14.......................     06-039-2010         17.8         14.0         13.8         15.2
Merced County:
    Merced--M Street........................     06-047-2510         13.5         11.2         12.6         12.5
    Merced--Coffee..........................     06-047-0003         13.3         10.8         12.8         12.3
San Joaquin County:
    Stockton................................     06-077-1002         17.7         12.1         12.8         14.2
    Manteca.................................     06-077-2010         11.7          9.8         12.6         11.4
Stanislaus County:
    Modesto.................................     06-099-0005         14.5         11.4          Inc          Inv
    Turlock.................................     06-099-0006         15.1         12.3         14.4         13.9
Tulare County:
    Visalia.................................     06-107-2002         18.9         17.9         16.1         17.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. Inv = Invalid design value due to incomplete data. Design values shown in bold
  type do not meet the applicable NAAQS.
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request ID: 1463864, July 15, 2016, except as otherwise noted.
\a\ Source: EPA, design value workbook dated July 29, 2016, worksheet ``Table 5. PM2.5 Site Listing, 2013-
  2015,'' column S.
\b\ The 2015 design value site (Corcoran-Patterson) is based on concentration data from January 1, 2013 to
  February 6, 2015. Data from February 7, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are not available due to a fire that
  destroyed the site. Based on design value calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
  section 4.1(b), the annual design value for Corcoran-Patterson is considered valid despite the missing 2015
  data. The second highest 2013-2015 concentration (annual PM2.5 design value of 20.8 [micro]g/m\3\) at
  Bakersfield-Planz includes data measured for three years (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2015).


          Table 2--2013-2015 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 98th Percentile ([micro]g/m\3\)      2013-2015
                                                             ---------------------------------------   24-Hour
                                                                                                        design
              General location                Site  (AQS ID)                                            values
                                                                  2013         2014         2015      ([micro]g/
                                                                                                        m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County:
    Fresno--Pacific.........................    06-019--5025         71.6         61.8         42.0           58
    Fresno-Garland..........................     06-019-0011         63.8         66.7         52.0           61
    Clovis..................................     06-019-5001         56.2         64.5         45.7           55
    Tranquility \a\.........................     06-019-2009         35.7          Inc         35.8           34
Kern County:
    Bakersfield--Planz Road.................     06-029-0016         96.7         76.7         56.5           77
    Bakersfield--California Ave.............     06-029-0014         71.8         79.9         57.2           70
    Bakersfield--Golden State Highway \a\...     06-029-0010          Inc        107.2         51.5          Inv
Kings County:
    Corcoran \b\............................     06-031-0004         66.0         71.0         99.2           79
    Hanford.................................     06-031-1004         67.6         81.9         51.4           67
Madera County:
    Madera--Avenue 14.......................     06-039-2010         54.6         56.0         43.7           51
Merced County:
    Merced--M Street........................     06-047-2510         67.3         45.9         39.0           51
    Merced--Coffee..........................     06-047-0003         42.3         43.8         40.3           42
San Joaquin County:
    Manteca.................................     06-077-2010         40.2         40.0         42.7           41
    Stockton................................     06-077-1002         56.3         44.5         39.1           47
Stanislaus County:
    Modesto.................................     06-099-0005         56.4         49.5         30.8           46
    Turlock.................................     06-099-0006         55.4         51.2         47.3           51
Tulare County:

[[Page 69453]]

 
    Visalia.................................     06-107-2002         62.5         75.4         45.8           61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. Inv = Invalid design value due to incomplete data. Design values shown in bold
  type do not meet the applicable NAAQS.
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request ID: 1463864, July 15, 2016, except as otherwise noted.
\a\ Source: EPA, design value workbook dated July 29, 2016, worksheet ``Table 5. PM2.5 Site Listing, 2013-
  2015,'' column Z.
\b\ The 2015 design value site (Corcoran-Patterson) is based on concentration data from January 1, 2013 to
  February 6, 2015. Data from February 7, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are not available due to a fire that
  destroyed the site. Based on design value calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
  section 4.2(b), the 24-hour design value for Corcoran-Patterson is considered valid despite the missing 2015
  data. The second highest 2013-2015 concentration (24-hour PM2.5 design value of 77 [micro]g/m\3\) at
  Bakersfield--Planz includes data measured for three years (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2015).

    The data in Tables 1 and 2 show that a number of sites in central 
and southern San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015 and that the geographic 
extent of failure to attain the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 
more limited than for the annual standard in that only sites in 
southwestern San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 24-hour standard. 
The 2015 annual design value site, i.e., the site with the highest 
design value based on 2013-2015 data, is the Corcoran site with a 2015 
annual PM2.5 design value of 22.2 [micro]g/m\3\. With 
respect to the 24-hour average, the 2015 design value site is the 
Corcoran site with a 24-hour PM2.5 design value of 79 
[micro]g/m\3\.
    For an area to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by December 
31, 2015, the 2015 design value (reflecting data from 2013-2015) at 
each eligible monitoring site must be equal to or less than 15.0 
[micro]g/m\3\ for the annual standard and 65 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-
hour standard. Tables 1 and 2 show that the 2015 design values at a 
number of sites in the San Joaquin Valley are greater than those 
values. Therefore, based on quality-assured and certified data for 
2013-2015, we are proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley 
failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards 
by the December 31, 2015 attainment date.
    Lastly, we note that, under our regulations at 40 CFR 50.14, a 
monitoring agency may request the EPA to exclude data showing 
exceedances or violations of the standard that are directly due to an 
exceptional event from use in determinations by demonstrating that such 
event caused a specific air pollution concentration at a particular air 
quality monitoring location. A monitoring agency notifies the EPA of 
its intent to request exclusion of concentrations by placing a ``flag'' 
in the appropriate field for the data of concern in AQS.
    For PM2.5 ambient data collected from 2013-2015, the 
District ``flagged'' one 24-hour concentration at the Bakersfield 
(Planz Road) site and two 24-hour concentrations at the Bakersfield 
(California Avenue) site due to high winds. The District also flagged 
twenty-four 24-hour concentrations at each of the Madera and Merced 
(Coffee Avenue) sites due to wildfire.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA, AQS Raw Data Qualifier Report, Report Request ED: 
1464417, July 18, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has not requested concurrence on the flagged data, and 
thus the data are not excluded from the set of data used to determine 
whether the standard was attained. However, even if all of the flagged 
data were to be excluded, i.e., even if the EPA had concurred on the 
data as qualifying as exceptional events, the design values reported in 
Tables 1 and 2, though slightly lower at certain sites, would remain 
well above the NAAQS.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request ED: 1463865, 
July 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For instance, the 2015 annual PM2.5 design value at the 
Bakersfield (Planz Road) monitoring site would be 20.4 [mu]g/m\3\ 
instead of 20.8 [mu]g/m\3\ if all of the flagged data were excluded. 
Thus, it would still fail to attain the applicable standard of 15.0 
[mu]g/m\3\. Similarly, the 2015 24-hour PM2.5 design value 
at the same site would be 72 [mu]g/m\3\ instead of 77 [mu]g/m\3\ if all 
of the flagged data were excluded, thus also failing to attain the 
applicable standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. Furthermore, several additional 
sites, for which the District has not flagged exceptional events, 
exceed the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2015 annual 
PM2.5 design values (i.e., Fresno-Garland, Clovis, Corcoran, 
Hanford, and Visalia) and 2015 24-hour design values (i.e., Corcoran 
and Hanford).

D. Consequences for Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Failing To Attain 
Standards by Attainment Date

    The consequences for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area 
for failing to attain the standards by the applicable attainment date 
are set forth in CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d). Under section 179(d), 
a state must submit a SIP revision for the area meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 110 and 172, the latter of which requires, 
among other elements, a demonstration of attainment and reasonable 
further progress, and contingency measures. CAA section 189(d) requires 
that the SIP revision must provide for attainment of the standards and, 
from the date of the SIP submittal until attainment, for an annual 
reduction in the emissions of PM2.5 or a PM2.5 
plan precursor pollutant within the area of not less than five percent 
of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent 
inventory prepared for such area.\32\ The requirement for a new 
attainment demonstration under CAA section 189(d) also triggers the 
requirement for the SIP revision for quantitative milestones under 
section 189(c) that are to be achieved every three years until 
redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 81 FR 58010 at 58100, 58158 (August 24, 2016). The EPA 
defines PM2.5 plan precursor as those PM2.5 
precursors required to be regulated in the applicable attainment 
plan and/or nonattainment new source review program. 81 FR 58010 at 
58152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new attainment date is set by CAA section 179(d)(3), which 
relies upon section 172(a)(2) to establish a new attainment date but 
with a different starting point than provided in section 172(a)(2). 
Under section 179(d)(3), the new attainment date is the date by which 
attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years from the date of the final determination of 
failure to attain, except that the EPA may extend the attainment

[[Page 69454]]

date for a period no greater than 10 years from the final 
determination, considering the severity of nonattainment and the 
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. Lastly, 
section 179(d) requires that the state submit the required SIP revision 
within 12 months after the applicable attainment date. In this case, if 
the EPA finalizes the proposed rule, then the State of California will 
be required to submit a SIP revision that complies with sections 179(d) 
and 189(d) within 12 months of December 31, 2015, i.e., by December 31, 
2016.

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2), the EPA proposes to 
determine that the San Joaquin Valley ``Serious'' PM2.5 
nonattainment area has failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date of 
December 31, 2015. If finalized, the State of California will be 
required under CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) to submit a revision to 
the SIP for the San Joaquin Valley that, among other elements, 
demonstrates expeditious attainment of the standards within the time 
period provided under CAA section 179(d) and that provides for annual 
reduction in the emissions of PM2.5 or a PM2.5 
plan precursor pollutant within the area of not less than five percent 
until attainment. The SIP revision required under CAA sections 179(d) 
and 189(d) would be due for submittal to the EPA no later than December 
31, 2016.
    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. We will consider these comments before taking 
final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action in and of itself establishes no new 
requirements; it merely documents that air quality in the San Joaquin 
Valley did not meet the 1997 PM2.5 standards by the CAA 
deadline. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian 
Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Nonetheless, the EPA 
has notified the Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 
nonattainment area of the proposed action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-24084 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P