Proposed Rule2025-12856
Finding of Failure To Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards; California; San Joaquin Valley
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
July 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley, California area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard by its June 15, 2024 "Extreme" area attainment date. This proposed determination is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2021 through 2023.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 130 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 130 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30607-30611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12856]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0587; FRL-12483-01-R9]
Finding of Failure To Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards;
California; San Joaquin Valley
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the San Joaquin Valley, California area failed to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard by its June
15, 2024 ``Extreme'' area attainment date. This proposed determination
is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data from 2021 through 2023.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0587 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. 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: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, ARD-2,
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105: telephone number: (415) 972-
3407; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6905081e1b0c070a0c4705081c1b08290c1908470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a565b4d485f54595f14565b4f485b7a5f4a5b145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
B. History of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley
II. EPA Analysis
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
B. Monitoring Network Considerations
C. Data Considerations
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regulatory Context
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints.
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA, Health Effects of Ozone Pollution, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA
promulgates national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS
are concentration levels whose attainment and maintenance the EPA has
determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In
1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established primary and
secondary standards for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged
over a 1-hour period.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1997, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08
ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period.\3\ The EPA set the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standards were set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would
be more protective of human health, especially for children and for
adults who are active outdoors, and for individuals with a preexisting
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). Primary standards provide
public health protection, including protecting the health of
``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection,
including protection against decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Since the primary and
secondary standards established in 1997 are set at the same level,
we refer to them herein using the singular ``1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS'' or ``1997 8-hour ozone standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2008, the EPA completed another review of the primary and
secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm.\4\ The EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS effective April 6, 2015; \5\ however, to comply with anti-
backsliding requirements of the Act, areas designated nonattainment at
the time that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked remain subject to
certain
[[Page 30608]]
requirements based on their classification at the time of revocation,
including requirements related to nonattainment contingency measures
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and, for ``Severe'' and
``Extreme'' areas, major source fee programs under CAA section 185.\6\
The EPA's determination that an area failed to attain by its attainment
date, which is made under CAA section 301 and consistent with section
181(b)(2), triggers these anti-backsliding requirements. See South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1147 (D.C. Cir.
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\5\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\6\ 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley ozone area, excluding areas of Indian
country,\7\ is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District''). Under
California law, SJVUAPCD is responsible for adopting and implementing
stationary source rules in the San Joaquin Valley, such as the fee
program rules required under CAA section 185, while the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer products and
mobile source rules subject to the requirements of CAA section 209.
CARB submits the District and State rules to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An area is considered to have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10, based on three consecutive years of
complete, quality-assured, and certified monitoring data. A violation
of the NAAQS occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data
show that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is greater than
0.08 ppm.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. As explained in
section II.A. of this document, due to rounding and truncation
conventions the computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085
ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. History of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
The San Joaquin Valley area consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western
portion of Kern County. The area stretches over 250 miles from north to
south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over 23,000 square
miles. 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.\9\ The population of the San Joaquin Valley area is over
4.3 million people.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, see 40 CFR
81.305.
\10\ SJVUAPCD, 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
(December 15, 2022), p. 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, the EPA
designated the San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and classified it as ``Serious'' under CAA section
181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), table 1.\11\ This designation and
classification became effective on June 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 69 FR 23858, 23888-89 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, California requested that the EPA reclassify the San
Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area from Serious to Extreme
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section
181(b)(3). On May 5, 2010, we granted California's request and
reclassified the area to Extreme effective June 4, 2010, with an
attainment date of no later than June 15, 2024.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010) and 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA Analysis
A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
For the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA is required to
determine whether an ozone area attained the ozone standard by the
area's attainment date solely for purposes of triggering any applicable
anti-backsliding requirements. For Extreme areas, applicable
requirements triggered upon a finding that an area failed to attain by
the attainment date are nonattainment contingency measures and CAA
section 185 fee programs.\13\ A determination of whether an area's air
quality meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is generally based on
three years of complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality
monitoring data gathered at established State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (``SLAMS'') in the area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database.\14\ Data from ambient air monitors operated by
State/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to the AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually
certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge.
Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database when
determining the attainment status of an area.\15\ All data are reviewed
to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2)(iii).
\14\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining
attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data.
There are less stringent data requirements for showing that a
monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a
violation of the standard.
\15\ 40 CFR 50.10; 40 CFR part 50, appendix I; 40 CFR part 53;
40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone
monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding, based on the truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ``design
value.'' When the design value is greater than 0.084 ppm at any monitor
within the area, then the area is violating the NAAQS. The data
completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent
and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness, as
determined under appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley
failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its applicable
attainment date; that is, that the average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration was above 0.08 ppm in
the period prior to the applicable attainment date, i.e., 2021-2023.
This proposed determination is based on three years of quality-assured
and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in AQS for the 2021-
2023 monitoring period.
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. In the San Joaquin Valley, SJVUAPCD is the
governmental agency with the authority and responsibilities under state
law for collecting ambient air quality data. The ambient air
[[Page 30609]]
monitoring network in the San Joaquin Valley area also includes air
monitoring stations that are managed and operated by CARB and the
National Park Service (NPS). As a result, SJVUAPCD submits annual
network plans to the EPA. These plans document the status of SJVUAPCD's
air monitoring network including the CARB and NPS air monitoring
stations, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these annual
network plans for compliance with specific requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With respect to ozone, we have found that the annual network plans
submitted by SJVUAPCD meet the minimum monitoring requirements of 40
CFR part 58.\16\ See table 1 for a summary of air quality monitors in
the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ We have included copies of SJVUAPCD's annual network plans
for 2021-2023 in the docket for this action, along with our reviews
of these plans and our associated transmittal correspondence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA conducts regular Technical Systems Audits (TSAs)
where we review and inspect state and local ambient air monitoring
programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning
the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air
quality data. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the
findings from the EPA's most recent TSA of SJVUAPCD's and CARB's
ambient air monitoring program.\17\ The results of this TSA do not
preclude the EPA from determining that the San Joaquin Valley area has
failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See letter from Matthew Lakin, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Edie Chang, Deputy Executive
Officer, CARB, dated March 14, 2024, and enclosure titled
``Technical Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program:
CARB, December 2021-August 2022.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Data Considerations
In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, SJVUAPCD, CARB, and the NPS
certify annually that the previous year's ambient concentration and
quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the
ambient concentration data are accurate, taking into consideration the
quality assurance findings.\18\ There were 24 ozone monitoring sites
located throughout the San Joaquin Valley in calendar years 2021
through 2023: one within Kings County, six within Fresno County, seven
within Kern County, two within Madera County, one within Merced County,
two within San Joaquin County, two within Stanislaus County and three
within Tulare County.\19\ Table 1 of this document summarizes the ozone
monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the San Joaquin
Valley ozone area by showing the annual 4th highest daily maximum
concentrations and design values over the 2021-2023 period. The data
summarized in table 1 of this document are considered complete for the
purposes of determining if the standard is met.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We have included SJVUAPCD's, CARB's, and NPS's annual data
certifications for 2021, 2022, and 2023 in the docket for this
action.
\19\ See page 2 of SJVUAPCD's 2023 Air Monitoring Network Plan
(July 3, 2023) for a map illustrating the locations of the air
monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley.
\20\ The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the
ozone monitors over the 2021-2023 period but were not met for the
ozone monitors at the Hanford-Irwin monitoring site. However, the
failure of this monitor to meet the completeness criteria does not
bear on the question of whether the area is violating because
several other monitors within the area are violating the NAAQS.
Table 1-San Joaquin Valley Area Fourth High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations and Design Values (ppm) for 2021-
2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th highest daily maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Design value
AQS site ID Site name 2021 2022 2023 (2021-2023)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KINGS COUNTY:
06-031-1004................... Hanford-Irwin... 0.076 0.075 \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid
FRESNO COUNTY:
06-019-0007................... Fresno-Drummond. 0.088 0.076 0.082 0.082
06-019-0011................... Fresno-Garland.. 0.086 0.073 0.080 0.079
06-019-0242................... Fresno-Sky Park. 0.084 0.075 0.078 0.079
06-019-2009................... Tranquility..... 0.072 0.063 0.064 0.066
06-019-4001................... Parlier......... 0.090 0.081 0.081 0.084
06-019-5001................... Clovis-Villa.... 0.085 0.080 0.081 0.082
KERN COUNTY:
06-029-0007................... Edison.......... 0.094 0.087 0.089 0.090
06-029-0008................... Maricopa........ 0.073 0.074 0.079 0.075
06-029-0014................... Bakersfield- 0.077 0.071 0.075 0.074
California.
06-029-0232................... Oildale......... 0.086 0.085 0.076 0.082
06-029-2012................... Bakersfield-Muni 0.085 0.084 0.082 0.083
06-029-5002................... Arvin-Di Giorgio 0.084 0.085 0.088 0.085
06-029-6001................... Shafter......... 0.076 0.077 0.073 0.075
MADERA COUNTY:
06-039-0004................... Madera-Pump Yard 0.083 0.070 0.072 0.075
06-039-2010................... Madera-City..... 0.085 0.078 0.077 0.080
MERCED COUNTY:
06-047-0003................... Merced-Coffee... 0.079 0.072 0.075 0.075
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:
06-077-1003................... Stockton- 0.061 0.067 0.064 0.064
University Park.
06-077-3005................... Tracy-Airport... 0.069 0.062 0.062 0.064
STANISLAUS COUNTY:
06-099-0005................... Modesto-14th 0.076 0.071 0.074 0.073
Street.
06-099-0006................... Turlock......... 0.083 0.077 0.077 0.079
TULARE COUNTY:
06-107-0009................... Sequoia-Ash 0.093 0.086 0.086 0.088
Mountain.
06-107-2003................... Visalia-W 0.094 0.090 0.080 0.088
Ashland Avenue.
[[Page 30610]]
06-107-2010................... Porterville..... 0.092 0.083 0.087 0.087
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The required annual 75 percent completeness criterion was not met, therefore the annual 4th highest daily
maximum values were not provided.
\b\ The design value for the Hanford-Irwin site is invalid due to null coded data in AQS with poor quality
assurance results from March through June of 2023. All other design values are valid.
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value (AMP480), Report Request ID: 2244187, December 9, 2024.
Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin
Valley occur in the central portions of the area. As shown in table 1
of this document, the highest 8-hour design value at any site in the
San Joaquin Valley ozone area for 2021-2023 is 0.090 ppm at the Edison
monitoring site in Kern County and represents a violation of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard.\21\ Table 1 of this document shows that
violations occur in Kern County and Tulare County. Taking into account
the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network,
and the data collected therefrom and summarized in table 1 of this
document, we propose to determine that the San Joaquin Valley area
failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix I) by the applicable attainment date (i.e., June 15,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ For more information, please see ``National 8-hour primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' (40 CFR
50.10) and ``Interpretation of the 8-Hour Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50,
appendix I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
We are proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley area
failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2024
attainment date, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air
quality monitoring data from 2021 through 2023. The EPA is determining
whether this area failed to attain by the applicable attainment date
solely for purposes of triggering applicable anti-backsliding
requirements.\22\ For Extreme areas, applicable requirements triggered
upon a finding that an area failed to attain by the attainment date are
nonattainment contingency measures and CAA section 185 fee programs. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal until August 11,
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In this instance, a final determination by the EPA of
failure to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin
Valley by the applicable attainment date would trigger CARB's Smog
Check Contingency Measure in the Valley and the District's Rule 3171
(``Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee--1997 8-Hour
Standard''). The EPA approved CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure
at 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024). CARB submitted District Rule 3171 to
the EPA as a SIP revision on January 10, 2024, but the EPA has not
yet taken action on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because actions that make
determinations under CAA section 181(b)(2) are exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the obligations discussed herein do not
apply to Indian Tribes and thus, this action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nonetheless,
the EPA is notifying the Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley ozone
area of the proposed determination.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 30611]]
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 30, 2025.
Joshua F.W. Cook,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2025-12856 Filed 7-9-25; 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 July 10, 2025.
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.