Rule2024-25946
Air Plan Approval and Attainment Date Extension; 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area; San Joaquin Valley, California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 19, 2024
Effective
December 19, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") requirements for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley "Serious" nonattainment area. The EPA is also finalizing a one-year extension of the applicable attainment date from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> San Joaquin Valley, California, nonattainment area based on our evaluation of air quality monitoring data and the extension request and supporting information submitted by the State of California.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 91263-91269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25946]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250 and EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301; FRL-12006-02-R9]
Air Plan Approval and Attainment Date Extension; 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements
for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San
Joaquin Valley ``Serious'' nonattainment area. The EPA is also
finalizing a one-year extension of the applicable attainment date from
December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> San Joaquin Valley, California, nonattainment area
based on our evaluation of air quality monitoring data and the
extension request and supporting information submitted by the State of
California.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250 and EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301. All documents
in the dockets are listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information. 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, Geographic Strategies
and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3877; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee899c8f868f83c08f9d86828b979cae8b9e8fc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3156435059505c1f5042595d544843715441501f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Actions
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. Comments From CCAC
B. Comments From Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of the Proposed Actions
On July 8, 2024, the EPA proposed two actions related to the CAA
requirements for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley Serious nonattainment area.
In the first action, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposed
to approve through parallel processing the ``Amendments to the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision and Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure
for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments'') as a revision to the California SIP.\1\ The 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ Plan Amendments seek to amend a SIP-approved measure, the
``Accelerated Turnover of Agricultural Equipment Incentive Projects''
(``Valley Incentive Measure''), to include a quantification of the
emissions reductions for the year 2023 from existing agricultural
equipment projects from the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's)
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (``Carl
Moyer'') and CARB's Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for
Emission Reductions (FARMER) program and seek EPA approval of those
emission reductions for SIP credit. The 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments also seek to revise the aggregate tonnage commitment in the
attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (i.e., the
``Attainment Plan Revision for the 1997 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Standard'' (``15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision'')) by replacing it with a
commitment to achieve the same reductions from the Valley Incentive
Measure. As part of the EPA's proposal to approve the 15 [micro]g/m\3\
Plan Amendments, we proposed to approve the State's demonstration that
the Valley Incentive Measure has achieved emissions reductions of 5.0
tons per day (tpd) of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and 0.27 tpd of
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the year 2023, and proposed to credit the
reductions as a substitute measure to meet the aggregate tonnage
commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 55896 (July 8, 2024).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second action, based in part on our proposal to approve the
15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, the EPA proposed to grant
California's request for a one-year extension of the applicable
attainment date from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024, for the
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> San Joaquin Valley, California,
nonattainment area.\3\ The proposed action to extend the applicable
attainment date for this nonattainment area was based on the EPA's
evaluation of air quality monitoring data and extension request
submitted by the State of California, and our determination that the
State has satisfied the two statutory criteria for a one-year extension
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C): The State has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 89 FR 55901 (July 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details regarding the EPA's reasons for proposing to approve
the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments and to grant the one-year
extension, please see the July 8, 2024 proposal notices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 89 FR 55896 and 89 FR 55901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 22, 2024, California submitted the final version of the
15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments to the EPA as a
[[Page 91264]]
revision to the California SIP.\5\ We have reviewed this submittal and
find that it fulfills the SIP completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V. The SIP submission also includes evidence that adequate
public notice was given and that an opportunity for a public hearing
was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40
CFR 51.102. Specifically, CARB provided public notice and opportunity
for public comment prior to its July 25, 2024 public hearing on and
adoption of the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments.\6\ The SIP submission
includes proof of publication notices for the public hearing and
includes copies of the written and oral comments received during the
State's public review processes and CARB's responses thereto.\7\
Therefore, we find that the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments meet the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter dated August 22, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, with enclosures (submitted electronically August 22,
2024 and supplement submitted electronically October 7, 2024).
\6\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the San Joaquin
Valley 2024 State Implementation Plan for the 2012 12 [micro]g/m\3\
Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard, to Consider Amendments to the
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure and the 1997 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ State Implementation Plan Revision, and to Hear an
Implementation Update on the 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,'' dated
June 14, 2024.
\7\ J&K Court Reporting, LLC, ``Meeting, State of California,
Air Resources Board, Zoom Platform,'' July 25, 2024 (transcript of
CARB's public hearing), and CARB, ``Board Meeting Comments Log and
Comments posted that were presented during the Hearing'' (written
comments received).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The public comment period for the proposed rulemakings opened on
July 8, 2024, the date of publication of both proposals in the Federal
Register, and closed on August 7, 2024. During this period, the EPA
received five comment submissions in response to the proposal to
approve the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments, including two comment
submissions from anonymous commenters,\8\ one comment submission from a
private citizen,\9\ one comment from an environmental consultant,\10\
and one comment letter from CARB.\11\ Three of the five comment
submissions generally supported our proposal to approve the 15
[micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments \12\ and the remaining two comments were
not germane to our action.\13\ We did not receive any comments that
opposed EPA's proposed approval of the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan
Amendments. All five comments are included in the docket for the
proposed action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Anonymous comment received July 20, 2024, to Docket ID No.
EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301; and anonymous comment received July 27, 2024,
to Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301.
\9\ Comment letter dated and received August 7, 2024, from
Dennis Tristao to Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301.
\10\ Email dated June 28, 2024, including an attachment, from
Shawn Dolan to Lily Lee, EPA Region IX.
\11\ Comment letter dated and received August 5, 2024, from
Steven S. Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\12\ The three sets of comments supporting our proposal include
those from an anonymous commenter received July 27, 2024, those from
CARB, and those from the private citizen.
\13\ The two sets of comments that are not germane to our
proposal include those from an anonymous commenter received July 20,
2024, and those from the environmental consultant.
\14\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301/comments">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0301/comments</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received nine comment submissions in response to the
proposal to grant the one-year extension of the attainment date for the
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, including three comment submissions
from private citizens; \15\ a comment submission from a university
professor; \16\ a comment submission from the Santa Rosa Rancheria
Tachi Yokut Tribe (``Santa Rosa Rancheria''); \17\ a comment submission
from the Citizens Advisory Committee, a group representing industry,
environmental, and city interests in the San Joaquin Valley; \18\ a
comment submission from CARB; \19\ a comment submission from the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or
``District''); \20\ and a comment submission from a coalition of eight
environmental and community organizations (collectively referred to
herein as ``Central California Asthma Collaborative'' or CCAC).\21\ All
nine comment submissions are included in the docket for the proposed
action.\22\ Of the nine comment submissions provided in response to the
proposal to grant the one-year extension of the attainment date for the
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, four of the comments generally
support the EPA's proposal to grant the extension \23\ and three of the
comments were not germane to our action.<SUP>24 25</SUP> The supportive
and non-germane comments do not require a response. We respond to the
remaining two sets of comments received on our July 8, 2024 proposed
rule herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Email dated June 28, 2024, including an attachment, from
Shawn Dolan to Lily Lee, EPA Region IX; comment letter dated and
received August 7, 2024, from Dennis Tristao to Docket No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0250; comment received July 27, 2024, with attachment, from
Emily Brandt to Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250.
\16\ Comment received July 26, 2024, from Ian Faloona, UC Davis
Air Quality Research Center/Land, Air, & Water Resources Department,
titled ``Comments on `Review of San Joaquin Valley 2024 Plan for the
12 [micro]g/m\3\ Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard' by CARB, June 14,
2024.''
\17\ Comment letter dated July 23, 2024, and received July 29,
2024, from Leo Sisco, Tribal Chairman, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi
Yokut Tribe, to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX.
\18\ Comment letter dated and received August 7, 2024, from Ben
Cantu, Chair, Citizens Advisory Committee, to EPA Docket No. EPA-
R09-OAR-2024-0250, Subject: ``RE: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250,
Attainment Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California
1997 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment
Area.''
\19\ Comment letter dated and received August 5, 2024, from
Steven S. Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
\20\ Comment letter dated and received August 6, 2024, from
Sheraz Gill, Deputy APCO, SJVUAPCD, to Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-
0250, Subject: ``RE: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250, Attainment
Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California 1997 Annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area.''
\21\ Comment letter dated and received August 7, 2024, including
an attachment, to Ashley Graham, EPA Region 9. The eight
environmental and community organizations, in order of appearance in
the letter, are the Central California Asthma Collaborative, the
Central California Environmental Justice Network, the Central Valley
Air Quality Coalition, Earthjustice, the LEAP Institute, the
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability, Little Manila
Rising, and Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter.
\22\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250/comments">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0250/comments</a>.
\23\ The four sets of comments supporting our proposal include
those from the private citizen commenter received August 7, 2024,
those from the Citizens Advisory Committee, those from CARB, and
those from SJVUAPCD.
\24\ The three sets of comments that are not germane to our
action include those from the private citizen commenter received on
June 28, 2024, those received from a private citizen commenter on
July 27, 2024, and those from the university professor.
\25\ One of the comments titled ``Comments on `Review of San
Joaquin Valley 2024 Plan for the 12 [micro]g/m\3\ Annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard' by CARB, June 14, 2024'' concerns
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in San Joaquin Valley; however, the
title of the comment and the analysis therein indicates that it is
directed at the State's attainment plan for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The comment presents evidence that purports
to show that the State's attainment modeling for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is flawed; however such modeling is not
relevant to this action that concerns whether the State has met the
requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date for the
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Thus, the comment is not germane
to this action and does not necessitate any further response at this
time. The EPA will review the State's attainment plan for the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for compliance with the requirements
of the CAA and the EPA's regulations, and will determine, following
notice-and-comment rulemaking, whether the submission satisfies all
applicable CAA requirements. We encourage the commenter to resubmit
these comments as appropriate during such a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Comments From CCAC
Comment 1: CCAC comments that the Valley has a history of poor air
quality and of failing to attain the various NAAQS by their respective
deadlines.
[[Page 91265]]
Citing PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values for 2018-2020, 2019-2021, and
2020-2022 of 17.6 [micro]g/m\3\, 17.8 [micro]g/m\3\, and 18.8 [micro]g/
m\3\, CCAC claims that PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations have not
improved and remain well above the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ level of the 1997
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. CCAC also states that ``EPA [has]
correctly recognized the environmental injustice San Joaquin Valley
residents endure'' and summarizes findings from the EPA's prior
environmental justice (EJ) analyses for the area.
Response 1: The EPA acknowledges that there are communities with EJ
concerns in the San Joaquin Valley and does not dispute the challenges
associated with attaining the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in
this area. We also acknowledge that the Demographic Index analysis the
EPA discussed in the proposal to grant the extension of the attainment
date indicates that the indices that reflect the area's percent
minority and percent low-income populations are above the national
averages for those indices.\26\ Nevertheless, the CAA provides states
the opportunity to request an extension of the applicable attainment
date for a nonattainment area if they meet certain statutory criteria,
including that the area met the air quality standard in question in the
year leading up to the applicable attainment date.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 89 FR 55901, 55909.
\27\ CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCAC also expressed concern that PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in
the Valley have not improved in recent years, and that this pattern
should weigh against the extension of the attainment date. The EPA must
assess whether to grant the attainment date extension in light of the
statutory criteria. We note that CCAC relies on design values \28\ to
evaluate the pace of improvement in the area. However, design values,
which reflect the annual average over a three-year period, are not the
metric that EPA uses to determine whether a state qualifies for a one-
year attainment date extension. Rather, pursuant to section
172(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the EPA looks to the monitor data in the year
leading up to the attainment date (i.e., in this case, calendar year
2023) to assess an area's recent progress. As discussed in the proposal
to grant the one-year extension of the attainment date, the EPA
reviewed 2023 annual mean concentrations at each of the regulatory
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley and determined that such
data indicate that PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations were below the 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\ level of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For information about how the EPA calculates design values,
see 40 CFR 50.7 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b).
\29\ 89 FR 55901, 55909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, 2023 annual mean concentrations were lower than annual
mean concentrations in 2021 and 2022, indicating an improvement in air
quality conditions in 2023 relative to previous years.\30\ This is true
even without considering potential impacts from any exceptional events
during that timeframe.\31\ \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, accessed May 17, 2024
(User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID: 2193813).
\31\ Exceptional Events are unusual or naturally occurring
events that can affect air quality but are not reasonably
controllable using techniques that tribal, state or local air
agencies may implement in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Exceptional events may include wildfires, high wind dust events,
prescribed fires, stratospheric ozone intrusions, and volcanic and
seismic activities.
\32\ In the May 14, 2024, letter submitting documentation to
support the State's request for an attainment date extension, the
District noted that they and CARB ``are evaluating potential
documentation to remove exceptional events (including wildfire
impacts) from the 2021-2023 period, as allowed under the CAA and EPA
policies.'' Letter dated May 14, 2024, from Samir Sheikh, Executive
Director/APCO, SJVUAPCD, to Steven S. Cliff, Executive Officer,
CARB, Subject: ``RE: Attainment Date Extension for the 1997 Annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment
Area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that while this final action extends the attainment
date for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS to December 31, 2024, the area will remain classified as Serious
nonattainment for those NAAQS and is not relieved of any planning
obligations under the CAA. Following the December 31, 2024 attainment
date, the State and the EPA will assess whether the area has attained
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. If the area has met the NAAQS,
the EPA will make a determination that the area attained by the
attainment date. If the area has not met the NAAQS, the State may
request a second one-year extension if the area meets the CAA
requirements for such an extension. If the State does not qualify for,
or the EPA denies a request for, a second one-year extension under CAA
section 172, then the EPA will issue a finding of failure to attain and
the State will become subject to additional CAA requirements to achieve
attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley area.
Comment 2.A: CCAC asserts that the EPA does not have authority to
grant a one-year extension of the attainment date for the San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under CAA section
172(a)(2)(C). Specifically, CCAC notes that subpart 4 of Part D of
Title I of the Act provides for attainment date extensions for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas under specific circumstances under
section 188, and thus section 188 controls the question of whether the
EPA can grant an attainment date extension for a Serious
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area that fails to attain by the
applicable attainment date. CCAC asserts that attainment date
extensions for Serious nonattainment areas are addressed by CAA section
188(e), that California did not request such an extension, and that
therefore such extension is not available at this time to the San
Joaquin Valley for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
Response 2.A: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the
attainment date extension provisions under CAA section 188 control the
present action.
As CCAC accurately explains, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin
Valley as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS effective May 7, 2015.\33\ The following year, the EPA found that
the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain by the applicable Serious
attainment date and that sections 179(d) and 189(d) of the CAA governed
all subsequent plan requirements and attainment deadlines.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
\34\ 81 FR 84481 (November 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crucially, following a finding of failure to attain for a Serious
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, CAA section 189(d) does not
provide for a specific attainment date, and it instead requires:
[T]he State in which such area is located shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment, submit within 12 months after
the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which provide for
attainment of the [PM<INF>2.5</INF>] air quality standard and, from
the date of such submission until attainment for an annual reduction
in [PM<INF>2.5</INF>] or [PM<INF>2.5</INF>] precursor emissions
within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such
emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such
area.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ CAA section 189(d).
With respect to the new applicable attainment date for an area
governed by CAA section 189(d), the EPA explained in the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule \36\ that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
[T]he final rule includes the overarching requirement for a
Serious area that failed to attain by the previous attainment date
to establish a new date for attaining the standard as expeditiously
as practicable. However, neither CAA section 189(d) nor other
sections in subpart 4 explicitly establish or provide the authority
to establish a new attainment date for the area. Therefore, once an
area is beyond the attainment dates that Congress specified in
subpart 4 for the
[[Page 91266]]
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, the EPA must look to other provisions of part
D of the CAA to provide authority for a new attainment date.
Sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2) of the CAA provide generally
applicable attainment dates that fill the gap in the statute left
for areas subject to the requirements of CAA section 189(d). Thus,
for a PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area subject to CAA section
189(d) requirements, the EPA must establish a new attainment date
according to the provisions of CAA section 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2).
The EPA has followed this same approach in the past for
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas governed by subpart 4
nonattainment requirements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at 58106.
Thus, subpart 4 controls the requirements for an attainment plan
under CAA section 189(d); however, after a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area fails to attain by the attainment date, the
applicable attainment date for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment
area subject to the requirements of CAA section 189(d) is controlled by
the generally applicable provisions in subpart 1 of part D, CAA section
172.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, section 172 explicitly
provides for the extension that the EPA is finalizing as part of this
action. The commenter cites CAA section 172(a)(2)(D), which states,
``[t]his paragraph shall not apply with respect to nonattainment areas
for which attainment dates are specifically provided under other
provisions of this part.'' But as explained above, the attainment date
for an attainment plan required under CAA section 189(d) is not
specifically provided under the provisions in subpart 4, which is why
the EPA relied on section 172 in setting the December 31, 2023
attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 81 FR 84481, 84482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because CAA section 172 controls for purposes of setting an
attainment date for a plan required under CAA section 189(d), it is
logical and reasonable that the generally applicable provisions in
section 172 would control an extension of that attainment date in the
absence of any specific authority in subpart 4 for such extensions.
Comment 2.B: CCAC claims that the EPA evaluates the State's request
for an attainment date extension pursuant to EPA guidance on the
implementation of CAA section 188(d), which concerns attainment date
extensions for Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas, and
asserts that the EPA does not have authority to apply such provisions
to a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area.
Response 2.B: The EPA is not granting the extension pursuant to
section 188(d) of the Act. Rather, because section 172(a)(2)(C) does
not have PM-specific provisions and because the EPA has not issued
guidance on how to implement the provisions of section 172(a)(2)(C)
relevant to this particular question of the criteria for an extension
of the attainment date for an PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area
subject to section 189(d), the EPA looked to guidance on the extension
provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas under CAA section
188(d) in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, given that
``section 188(d) is nearly identical to CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).''
\39\ While we did not assert that 188(d) controls in this situation, we
did ``consider[ ] 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).'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 89 FR 55901, 55904.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2.C: CCAC further claims that ``[t]he D.C. Circuit has
rejected EPA's attempt to implement the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard under
Subpart 1.''
Response 2.C: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that reliance on
the generally applicable provisions in CAA section 172 to fill a gap in
subpart 4 indicates that the EPA is improperly implementing a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under subpart 1. To the contrary, the EPA
implements the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in accordance with the relevant
provisions of both subpart 1 and subpart 4, and subpart 1 provisions
continue to apply unless specifically overridden or revised by subpart
4. As we stated in our proposal, the EPA does not dispute that section
189(d) is the controlling provision for Serious areas that, like the
San Joaquin Valley, fail to attain a PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\41\ Instead, the EPA is implementing the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard under subpart 4 and subpart 1, in keeping
with EPA's longstanding interpretation that the statutory provisions of
CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 179(d)(3) govern the attainment date for new
plans required under CAA section 189(d) for areas that previously
failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Following a January 4, 2013 decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.'' Id. at 55903.
\42\ See, e.g., 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007) (finding that the
Phoenix PM<INF>10</INF> Serious nonattainment area failed to attain
the standard by the December 31, 2006 attainment deadline and
implementing the new attainment date for an attainment plan under
CAA section 189(d) pursuant to sections 172 and 179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2.D: CCAC asserts that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
Requirements Rule and the EPA's implementing regulations under 40 CFR
51.1005(c) prohibit California from requesting an extension of the
December 31, 2023 applicable attainment deadline, and thus EPA approval
of this one-year extension request would violate the EPA's own
implementing regulations and is arbitrary and capricious.
Response 2.D: The EPA disagrees that 40 CFR 51.1005(c) prohibits
the proposed attainment date extension. The EPA's regulations under 40
CFR 51.1005 concern extensions of the applicable attainment date for
Moderate and Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas. Applicable
attainment dates for PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas are initially
set under 40 CFR 51.1004, and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(1) and (a)(2) follow
the mandates in CAA sections 188(c)(1) and (c)(2), the CAA sections
governing the setting of Moderate and Serious attainment dates,
respectively. Likewise, 40 CFR 51.1005(a) and (b) follow the
requirements of CAA sections 188(d) and (e), respectively, as the
primary sections governing extensions of the applicable attainment date
for Moderate and Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas.
In contrast, the authority for the requirements in 40 CFR
51.1004(a)(3) governing nonattainment areas subject to CAA section
189(d) for failure to attain by the applicable Serious area attainment
date comes from CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), not section 188. As explained
in Response 2.A, CAA section 172 controls for purposes of setting an
attainment date for a plan required under CAA section 189(d) because
the provisions of subpart 4, including section 188(c), do not
specifically provide authority for establishing attainment dates for
189(d) attainment plans. Because a state required to adopt and submit a
189(d) plan is subject to the attainment date requirements of CAA
section 172(a)(2),\43\ 40 CFR 51.1005(c) prohibits a state subject to
section 189(d) from applying for an extension of the applicable
attainment date in excess of that which is permitted for an attainment
plan under section 189(d). For example, a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area subject to section 189(d) may not apply for an
extension of the applicable attainment date under section 188(e). Thus,
the EPA believes
[[Page 91267]]
the proposed attainment date extension, which was made in accordance
with CAA sections 189(d) and 172, is consistent with the relevant CAA
provisions and the EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ I.e., the nonattainment area must attain the relevant
standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years
from date of designation, with the possibility of setting the date
10 years from the date of designation under certain circumstances,
and with the possibility of additional extensions of two one-year
periods under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: CCAC comments that ``[i]nstead of proposing to approve
an illegal and unauthorized one-year extension, EPA should have made an
attainment finding.'' CCAC asserts that the EPA has a duty to make an
attainment finding within six months of the attainment date, citing CAA
sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) and that the EPA instead proposes to
extend the attainment date without authority to do so.
Response 3: As explained in Responses 1 and 2, we believe a one-
year extension is appropriate in this situation and authorized by the
CAA if a state meets the statutory preconditions. In our proposal, the
EPA proposed to determine that the State has satisfied the criteria for
a one-year extension under CAA section 172 for the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley area, and if finalized
the EPA would no longer be required under CAA section 179(c) to make a
finding as to whether the area attained by the December 31, 2023
attainment date. The EPA notes that it will again have an obligation
under CAA section 179 to make a determination as to whether the San
Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
following the extended December 31, 2024 attainment date. If the air
quality data indicate that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area
did not attain by the December 31, 2024 attainment date, and if the
State does not qualify for, or the EPA denies a request for, a second
one-year extension under CAA section 172, then the EPA will issue a
finding of failure to attain at such time in accordance with CAA
section 179(c).
B. Comments From Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
Comment 4: Santa Rosa Rancheria notes that the San Joaquin Valley
has not attained the standard in nearly three decades and opposes an
extension due to the commenter's concerns that the SIP is not proving
effective in bringing the area into attainment.
Response 4: As discussed in Response 1, the EPA is evaluating the
requested extension of the attainment date in light of the relevant
statutory criteria. With respect to the air quality criterion of CAA
section 172(a)(2)(C)(ii), the EPA has determined that the 2023 annual
mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration data from each of the regulatory
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley indicate that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations were below the 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ level
of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, reflecting an improvement in
air quality relative to prior years. Based in part on our review of
these data, we have determined that the State has met the requirements
under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C) for a one-year extension of the
attainment date. The EPA will continue to monitor the area's progress
towards attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and will
make a finding as to whether the area attained the NAAQS following the
applicable extended attainment date.
Comment 5: Santa Rosa Rancheria expresses concern that elevated
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels are correlated with premature mortality rates,
aggravated respiratory and cardiovascular disease, changes in lung
function, and increased respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms.
Response 5: The EPA agrees that epidemiological studies have shown
statistically significant correlations between elevated
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and adverse health outcomes, including
premature mortality. While this action to approve a SIP revision and
grant a one-year extension of the attainment date is not expected to
reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA notes
that the area is also designated nonattainment for the more stringent
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and is subject to additional
requirements to meet those NAAQS. As a result, the State will be
continuing its efforts to adopt and implement additional control
measures that will continue to improve ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels
in the San Joaquin Valley. On August 22, 2024, California submitted a
revised attainment plan for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,
which includes, among other things, the State's control strategy to
achieve reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors to bring the area into attainment of those NAAQS.\44\ While
the EPA has not yet taken action on the revised plan for the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, we expect that implementation of the
plan will yield additional reductions in PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Letter dated August 22, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, with enclosures (submitted electronically August 22,
2024, and supplement submitted electronically October 7, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: The Santa Rosa Rancheria notes that it monitors its own
air quality, and based on the data it has collected, Santa Rosa
Rancheria challenges the representativeness of the data relied upon by
the State and the EPA. Santa Rosa Rancheria states that ``[a]ccording
to the Tribe's Air Quality Monitoring Program, from multiple locations
around the Rancheria, as seen in the attachment, the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
averages well above 25 [micro]g/m\3\. This data is reported on the AQS
database. Exposure levels over 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ are considered
unsafe. The Tribe's data shows the level consistently double that
level.''
Response 6: As discussed in our proposal, the EPA relies on
complete, quality-assured data gathered at established State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations in a nonattainment area and entered into the
EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database to determine if an area meets the
requirement under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C) that the area had clean data
for the relevant standard in the calendar year preceding the applicable
attainment date.\45\ In evaluating Santa Rosa Rancheria's comments, the
EPA has reviewed data collected by the Tribe that is available in AQS.
These data indicate that Santa Rosa Rancheria reports data from one
monitoring site (AQS ID: 06-031-0500) that measures ozone,
PM<INF>10</INF>, and several meteorological parameters.\46\
PM<INF>2.5</INF> data from this site are not available in AQS.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 89 FR 55901, 55907.
\46\ EPA AQS Design Value Report, AMP435, accessed August 20,
2024 (User ID: XLEBARRY, Report Request ID: 2217065).
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rosa Rancheria's comment letter notes an attachment that
appeared to be inadvertently omitted from the comment submission. The
EPA followed up with Santa Rosa Rancheria regarding the data referenced
in its letter, and in response, Santa Rosa Rancheria provided data
files to the EPA that include PM<INF>2.5</INF> data collected by
monitors on tribal land in 2021 and 2022.\48\ We appreciate the Tribe
sharing PM<INF>2.5</INF> data from its monitoring network with the EPA.
However, because these data are not complete, quality-assured data
collected at regulatory monitoring sites that meet EPA requirements
\49\ and report to the EPA's AQS database, these data are not eligible
for comparison to the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Furthermore,
these data collected in 2021-2022 were collected outside the timeframe
relevant for the attainment date extension (i.e., 2023). While not
directly relevant to this particular action, the EPA recognizes the
[[Page 91268]]
importance of these supplemental data and commends the Tribe for its
collection and use of these data to help identify sources and inform
real-time decision-making to minimize PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposures in the
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Email dated September 4, 2024, from George Bernard,
Environmental Director, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, to
Lily Lee, Assistant Director, Air & Radiation Division, EPA Region
IX, with 84 attachments.
\49\ Regulatory monitoring requires adherence to 40 CFR parts
50, 53, and 58 and the related appendices and the use of designated
federal reference or federal equivalent methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: The Tribe asserts that research has shown that there is
a strong correlation between farming and animal husbandry and elevated
levels of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The Tribe states that a majority of
the land in the San Joaquin Valley is used for agriculture and that
because the Tribe is surrounded by agriculture, the air quality on
Tribal land is more representative of the nonattainment area than data
collected in more urban areas.
Response 7: As discussed in Response 6, the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
monitoring data collected by Santa Rosa Rancheria does not meet the
EPA's regulatory requirements for comparison with the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and were collected outside the timeframe
relevant for this action. Therefore, these data are not directly
relevant to the EPA's evaluation of whether the State has met the
requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date for the
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
Regarding the correlation between farming and animal husbandry and
elevated levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, we note that CARB and the District
are engaged in several research efforts to better understand the
emissions from these source categories. For example, in spring of 2024,
CARB convened a subject matter expert review panel to evaluate existing
data and science on NO<INF>X</INF> and ammonia emissions from soils in
California.\50\ CARB has also been engaged in compiling California-
specific dairy activity data and related emissions trends.\51\ While
not directly relevant to this action, we anticipate that such research
studies will help inform continued efforts to reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF>
exposures from agricultural activities for residents in the San Joaquin
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ For more information, see <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/eiareasource/1.%2023RD017%20Public%20Kickoff%20CARB%20Intro.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/eiareasource/1.%2023RD017%20Public%20Kickoff%20CARB%20Intro.pdf</a>.
\51\ For more information, see <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/CARB_Dairy_Sector_Workshop_Staff_Presentation_08-22-2024.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/CARB_Dairy_Sector_Workshop_Staff_Presentation_08-22-2024.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
As described in detail in our proposals, the EPA reviewed
environmental and demographic data for the San Joaquin Valley using the
EPA's EJ screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'') \52\ \53\ and
compared the data to the corresponding data for the United States as a
whole. The results of the analysis are provided for informational and
transparency purposes and are not a basis for the EPA's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen</a>.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing each of the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley.
\53\ EPA Region IX, ``EJSCREEN Analysis for the Eight Counties
of the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area,'' August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in our proposed rules and herein, the EPA
is finalizing our approval of the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Plan Amendments as a
revision to the California SIP. In doing so, we are approving the
State's amendment to the Valley Incentive Measure for the purposes of
emissions reductions in 2023 and the State's revision to the aggregate
tonnage commitment in the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ SIP Revision to reflect that
it has been satisfied by the Valley Incentive Measure. We are also
approving the State's demonstration that the Valley Incentive Measure
has achieved emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.27
tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the year 2023 and crediting those
reductions toward the emissions reduction commitment in the California
SIP.
Additionally, in response to a request from the State of California
on May 23, 2024, the EPA is granting a one-year extension to the
applicable attainment date for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. This final action to
extend the applicable attainment date from December 31, 2023, to
December 31, 2024, for this nonattainment area is based on the State's
compliance with the requirements in the applicable SIP for the area and
on the 2023 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data from sites in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
V. 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 Act. Accordingly, this
final action merely approves a state plan as meeting federal
requirements and grants a state request for an attainment date
extension consistent with federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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 rule 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.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, ``the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency
[[Page 91269]]
decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health
and the environment.''
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. Consistent with the EPA's
discretion under the CAA, the EPA performed an EJ analysis, as is
described above in the section titled, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations.'' The analysis was done 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 communities with EJ
concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the
CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January
21, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 2, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding and reserving paragraphs
(c)(620) through (622), and adding paragraph (c)(623) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(620)-(622) [Reserved]
(623) The following plan revisions were submitted electronically on
August 22, 2024, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a
letter of the same date.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Selected portions titled ``Amendments to the 15 [micro]g/m\3\
SIP Revision and Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure for the 1997
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard,'' and ``Appendix B: 2022 Annual
Demonstration Report: San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment
Incentive Measure Covering Projects Completed Through 12/31/2022,'' of
the Staff Report, ``Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2024 Plan for the
2012 12 [micro]g/m\3\ Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard and Amendments
to the Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure and the 1997 15
[micro]g/m\3\ State Implementation Plan Revision,'' adopted July 25,
2024.
(2) The portion of CARB Resolution 24-10, dated July 25, 2024,
adopting amendments to the Valley Incentive Measure to include
quantification of emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and
0.27 tpd of PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the year 2023 from existing
agricultural equipment projects and substituting the reductions from
the Valley Incentive Measure to meet the aggregate emissions reduction
commitment in the attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS approved in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)(9).
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-25946 Filed 11-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 19, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.