Proposed Rule2026-06441
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards; California; San Joaquin Valley; Error Correction
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
April 2, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
In response to a court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to correct our July 22, 2020 final action erroneously granting a Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") section 188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, and is now proposing to deny California's extension request. The EPA is also proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 unextended attainment date. This proposed determination is based upon monitored air quality data from 2017 through 2019. 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 (SIP) that, among other elements, provides for expeditious attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and for a five percent annual reduction in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor pollutant.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16614-16621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2026-1257; FRL-13247-01-R9]
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards;
California; San Joaquin Valley; Error Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a court decision, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to correct our July 22, 2020 final action
erroneously granting a Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') section 188(e)
attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2019, to
December 31, 2024, and is now proposing to deny California's extension
request. The EPA is also proposing to determine that the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 unextended attainment
date. This proposed determination is based upon monitored air quality
data from 2017 through 2019. 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 (SIP) that, among other
elements, provides for expeditious attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and for a five percent annual reduction in
emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan
precursor pollutant.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2026-1257 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: Ashley Graham, Geographic Strategies
and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3877; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d6a7f6c656c60236c7e656168747f4d687d6c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6106130009000c4f0012090d041813210411004f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
B. San Joaquin Valley Designations, Classifications, and
Attainment Dates for the 2006 24-Hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
C. The EPA's 2020 Action, Litigation, and 2022 Ninth Circuit
Vacatur and Remand
II. Error Correction in Response to the Medical Advocates for
Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA Decision and Proposed Denial of 188(e)
Extension
III. The EPA's Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain
A. Monitoring Network Review, Quality Assurance, and Data
Completeness
B. The EPA's Evaluation of Attainment
C. Consequences for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment
Area Failing to Attain Standards by the Attainment Date
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established NAAQS for
certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria
pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour (daily) NAAQS
for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([micro]m) in
diameter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) by lowering the level from 65 to 35
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\).\1\ The 24-hour standards
are based on a three-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. The EPA established these standards
after considering substantial evidence from numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006); 40 CFR 50.13. In
promulgating the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the EPA
retained the level of the 1997 annual average PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997); 40 CFR 50.7. In
this preamble, all references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, unless
otherwise specified, are to the 2006 24-hour standards (35 [micro]g/
m\3\) as codified in 40 CFR 50.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and premature
mortality. Other important health effects associated with
PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, and new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular
health. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure
include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and
children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> or direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions from
[[Page 16615]]
precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and ammonia (secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 81 FR 58010, 58011 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. San Joaquin Valley Designations, Classifications, and Attainment
Dates for the 2006 24-Hour 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. Effective December 14,
2009, the EPA finalized initial air quality designations for the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for
the three-year periods of 2005-2007 and 2006-2008.\4\ The EPA
designated the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\5\ Id. at 58696, codified at 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area
encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight
counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare,
Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.\6\ The area is home to over 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, see 40
CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2014, the EPA classified the San Joaquin Valley as a
``Moderate'' nonattainment area for these NAAQS, thereby establishing
December 31, 2015, as the latest permissible attainment date for the
area under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA.\7\ Effective February 19,
2016, the EPA reclassified the San Joaquin Valley as a ``Serious''
nonattainment area for these NAAQS.\8\ Shortly thereafter, the EPA
approved the State's demonstration that it was impracticable to attain
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2015
Moderate area attainment date and related plan elements addressing the
Moderate area requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). The EPA promulgated these
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area classifications in response to a
2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding
the EPA's prior implementation rule for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
and directing the EPA to repromulgate implementation rules pursuant
to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
\8\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
\9\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification as a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment
area, the San Joaquin Valley became subject to a new statutory
attainment date no later than the end of the tenth calendar year
following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019) and the requirement to
submit a Serious area plan satisfying the requirements of CAA Title I,
part D, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\10\ As explained in the EPA's final
reclassification action, the Serious area plan for the San Joaquin
Valley was required to include, among other things, a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment
as expeditiously as practicable and no later than the applicable
attainment date. The EPA established an August 21, 2017 deadline for
California to adopt and submit a SIP submission addressing the Serious
nonattainment area requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\11\ The EPA also noted that California may choose to submit a
request for an extension of the December 31, 2019 Serious area
attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e) simultaneously with its
submission of a Serious area plan for the area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 81 FR 2993, 2998 (January 20, 2016).
\11\ Id. at 3000 and 81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (codified at 40
CFR 52.247(f)).
\12\ 81 FR 2993, 2998 (January 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 188(e) of the CAA allows the EPA to extend the attainment
date for a Serious area by up to five years if attainment by the
Serious area attainment date is impracticable. However, before the
Agency may grant an extension of the attainment date, the state must
first:
1. Apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date;
2. Demonstrate that attainment by the Serious area attainment date
is impracticable;
3. Have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to
the area in its implementation plan;
4. Demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that its Serious
area plan includes the most stringent measures that are achieved in
practice in any state and are feasible for the area; and
5. Submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment by
the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
Under State law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the
Governor's designee for adoption and submittal of SIPs 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 generally
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 and submittal to the EPA for inclusion into the
California SIP.
On November 16, 2018, CARB submitted to the EPA substantial
portions of the Serious area plan for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS following CARB's adoption of one component of the plan on October
25, 2018, and the SJVUAPCD's adoption of a second component of it on
November 15, 2018.\13\ Because CARB had not yet adopted this submission
in its entirety, the EPA determined that it did not meet the EPA's
completeness requirements for SIP submissions under 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, section 2.1.\14\ Because the submission was incomplete, the
EPA issued a finding of failure to submit, which became effective on
January 7, 2019, and triggered clocks for the application of sanctions
unless the EPA affirmatively determined that the State has submitted a
complete SIP addressing the deficiency that was the basis for these
findings, consistent with CAA section 179(b) and the EPA's sanctions
sequencing rule in 40 CFR 52.31.\15\ These findings also triggered the
obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to issue a Federal
implementation plan no later than two years after the effective date of
the findings, unless the State has submitted, and the EPA has approved,
the required SIP submittal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter dated November 16, 2018, from Kurt Karperos, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB for Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX
(submitted electronically November 16, 2018).
\14\ 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018). The EPA made these findings
in response to a court order issued in Committee for a Better Arvin,
et al., v. Andrew Wheeler, et al. Case No. 18-cv-05700-RS (N.D.
Cal., October 24, 2018).
\15\ Id. at 62723.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2019, CARB submitted to the EPA two SIP revisions
(collectively referred to as the ``SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'' or
``Plan'') to meet the Serious nonattainment area requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, among
other
[[Page 16616]]
requirements for other PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\17\ The SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan included a request under CAA section 188(e) for
an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the area for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December
31, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
submitting the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standards,'' adopted by SJVUAPCD on November 15,
2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019, including a revised Appendix
H submitted by CARB as a technical correction on February 11, 2020,
and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy
for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted by CARB on October 25,
2018 (submitted electronically May 10, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2019, the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan became complete
by operation of law. The EPA subsequently made an affirmative
completeness finding on June 24, 2020, terminating the sanctions clocks
that were triggered by the December 6, 2018 finding that the State had
failed to submit a complete SIP submission addressing the statutory
requirements that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter dated June 24, 2020, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ``Completeness Finding for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions for San Joaquin Valley
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Termination of Clean Air Act (CAA) Sanctions Clocks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The EPA's 2020 Action, Litigation, and 2022 Ninth Circuit Vacatur
and Remand
On July 22, 2020, the EPA approved portions of the SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as they pertain to the Serious area requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\19\ Specifically, the EPA
approved the following portions of the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> The 2013 base year emissions inventories;
<bullet> The demonstration that best available control measures,
including best available control technology, for the control of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors would be
implemented no later than four years after the area was reclassified;
<bullet> The demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 2024;
<bullet> Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress
toward attainment by the applicable date;
<bullet> Quantitative milestones to be achieved every three years
until the area is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate
reasonable further progress toward attainment by the applicable
attainment date;
<bullet> Motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020, 2023, and 2024
as shown in Table 14 of the EPA's proposed rule; and
<bullet> The inter-pollutant trading mechanism provided for use in
transportation conformity analyses for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id. at 44204. The EPA did not act on the contingency
measure element of the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as part of our July
22, 2020 (85 FR 44192) action. The EPA finalized approval of the
State's contingency measures for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS via a subsequent action on October 4, 2024 (89 FR 80749,
October 4, 2024).
The EPA also granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, based on a determination
that the State had satisfied the statutory criteria for such an
extension.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. at 44205. To support our action on the State's
extension request, we also approved CARB's ``Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standards
in the San Joaquin Valley'' (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Prior Commitment
Revision''), revising the State's aggregate commitment in the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to reflect updated inventories in the SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and determined that the State had met the 0.86
tons per day (tpd) emission reduction commitment. See also the EPA's
proposed approval at 85 FR 27976 (May 12, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of their respective control measure commitments in the SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, CARB and the District each identified potential
control measures that were expected to achieve the additional emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS. Given the Plan's reliance on these enforceable commitments, the
EPA considered the three factors that the agency uses to determine
whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures
satisfy CAA planning requirements: (1) the commitment represents a
limited portion of required reductions; (2) the state is capable of
fulfilling its commitment; and (3) the commitment is for a reasonable
and appropriate timeframe. The EPA determined that the three criteria
(``three-factor test'') had been met and therefore approved CARB's and
the District's aggregate commitments in the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. at 44204, codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(536)(ii)(A)(2)
and (537)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, National Parks Conservation
Association, Association of Irritated Residents, and Sierra Club
(``Petitioners''), represented by Earthjustice, filed a petition for
review of the EPA's July 22, 2020 final action \23\ approving the SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and extending the attainment deadline under CAA
section 188(e). Petitioners objected to our approval of the SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan on several grounds, including that the EPA's
approval of the aggregate commitments contained in the Plan and the
EPA's approval of the Plan's ``most stringent measures'' and ``best
available control measures'' should be vacated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 13, 2022, in an unpublished memorandum opinion, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA case, granting the
petition in part and denying the petition in part.\24\ The Court held
that the EPA's analysis of the second factor of the three-factor test
was arbitrary and capricious because, in the Court's view, the Agency
had failed to provide evidence or reasoned justification that
California would be able to meet its commitment due to a shortfall in
funding for the Plan's incentive-based control measures. Thus, the
Court granted the petition with respect to the EPA's approval of the
aggregate commitments in the Plan, stating, ``we vacate the portion of
the final rule that determined that the relevant aggregate commitments
satisfied the second factor of the three-factor test and remand to the
EPA for further consideration of the second factor, and for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.'' In all other respects, the
Ninth Circuit denied the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA, 20-72780
(9th Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Error Correction in Response to the Medical Advocates for Healthy
Air et al. vs. EPA Decision and Proposed Denial of 188(e) Extension
In response to the Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA
decision, the EPA is proposing to correct its erroneous granting of the
CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley. Section 110(k)(6) of
the CAA provides that if the EPA Administrator determines that the
Administrator's action on a SIP revision was in error, the
Administrator may revise such action as appropriate without requiring
an additional submission from the state. The EPA's stated basis for
granting the extension was, in part, that the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
demonstrated expeditious attainment by 2024.\25\ The Medical Advocates
for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA opinion established that the EPA was
mistaken in its approval of the aggregate
[[Page 16617]]
commitment, which it relied upon in concluding that the Plan
demonstrated expeditious attainment by 2024. Because the EPA's granting
of the extension was expressly premised on the validity of the
attainment demonstration, the EPA now proposes to find that its
approval of the CAA section 188(e) extension was in error. The EPA is
proposing to revise the erroneous granting of the extension of the
attainment date and to now deny the extension request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 85 FR 17382, 17386-17387, 17404-17419 (March 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's proposal for its July 2020 action evaluated the State's
submitted attainment demonstration, which modeled attainment by 2024.
The proposal explained that the EPA was evaluating the attainment
demonstration in support of the State's requested CAA section 188(e)
attainment date extension from 2019 to 2024. The proposal began by
describing the five criteria that a state must meet before the EPA may
extend the attainment date for a Serious area under CAA section 188(e)
(see also section I.A of this document) and proceeded to evaluate the
State's extension request against these criteria.\26\ Turning to its
evaluation of the State's extension request, the proposal stated,
``given the section 188(e) requirement to demonstrate expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS, [we are evaluating] the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan's attainment demonstration, including the Plan's air quality
modeling approach and results and control strategy.\27\ The proposal
then summarized the EPA's evaluation of the attainment demonstration
and proposed to approve it as modeling attainment by 2024.\28\ The
proposal also explained that a portion of the modeled reductions relied
upon to demonstrate attainment in 2024 were based on an aggregate
tonnage commitment from the State to achieve additional reductions
beyond those attributed to baseline measure and new control strategy
measures.\29\ The EPA finalized its granting of the CAA section 188(e)
extension based in part on its analysis of the control measures and
aggregate commitments relied upon to model attainment in 2024.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 17386-17387, 17404-17419. In its description of the
requirement to submit a demonstration of attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable, the proposal stated that
``[e]valuation of a modeled attainment demonstration consists of two
parts: evaluation of the technical adequacy of the modeling itself
and evaluation of the control measures that are relied on to
demonstrate attainment.'' Id. at 17387.
\27\ Id. at 17404.
\28\ Id. at 17409-17419.
\29\ Id. at 17412-17419.
\30\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA decision,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was no rational
connection between the facts found by the EPA regarding the State's
ability to meet its aggregate commitment and the conclusion that the
District would nevertheless meet its attainment goals. Accordingly, the
Court vacated ``the portion of the final rule that determined that the
relevant aggregate commitments satisfied the . . . test,'' and remanded
to the EPA. The EPA will address this remand in a separate action.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The portions of the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that were
approved into the California SIP on July 22, 2020 (85 FR 44192)
(including the motor vehicle emissions budgets) are not being
addressed in this proposed action and remain in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of the present action, the Medical Advocates for
Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA order establishes that the EPA's stated
basis for extending the attainment date from 2019 to 2024 was
insufficiently supported and thus in error. Because the EPA's rationale
for extending the attainment date included a statement that CAA section
188(e) requires a demonstration of expeditious attainment of the NAAQS,
and the Court has vacated the EPA's approval of a necessary part of
that attainment demonstration, the EPA was in error when it granted the
CAA section 188(e) extension on that basis. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 110(k)(6) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to revise its
granting of the CAA section 188(e) extension and instead now proposes
to deny the extension. The EPA's approval of a CAA section 188(e)
extension is discretionary (``the Administrator may extend the
attainment date'' (emphasis added)); because both the 2019 and the 2024
attainment dates have now passed, the EPA has not identified a
compelling reason to re-evaluate and potentially grant the extension
request.\32\ Accordingly, the EPA proposes to revise its 2020 action
and instead deny the extension request. If finalized as proposed, this
would result in the attainment date for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS reverting to the original Serious area date of
December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We note that based on the most recent quality-assured and
certified data for 2022-2024, the San Joaquin Valley continues to
violate the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS with a 2024 design
value of 48 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480),
Report Request ID: 2351309, February 5, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA's Proposed Finding of Failure To Attain
A. Monitoring Network Review, Quality Assurance, and Data Completeness
Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
a PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area attained the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards is generally based
upon three years of complete, quality-assured 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. Data from ambient air monitors operated by state/local
agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be
submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data
are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA
relies primarily on data in AQS when determining compliance with the
NAAQS.\33\ The EPA reviews all data to determine the area's air quality
status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR part
53; 50 CFR part 58; and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.13 and in accordance with
appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are met when the
average of the three annual 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations, as
determined in accordance with the rounding conventions in 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ at each
eligible monitoring site within the area. This three-year average is
referred to as the ``design value.'' The data completeness requirement
for a given year is met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have valid data.
Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. The monitoring requirements are specified
in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are applicable to state and,
where delegated, local air monitoring agencies that operate criteria
pollutant monitors. The regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish
specific requirements for operating air quality surveillance networks
to measure ambient concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> to operate at
SLAMS. SLAMS produce data that are eligible for
[[Page 16618]]
comparison with the NAAQS, and the monitor must be an approved Federal
Reference Method (FRM) or Federal Equivalence Method (FEM). The minimum
number of SLAMS required is described in section 4.7.1 and can be met
by either filter-based or continuous FRMs or FEMs. The monitoring
regulations also provide that each core-based statistical area must
operate a minimum number of PM<INF>2.5</INF> continuous monitors; \34\
however, this requirement can be met by either an FEM or a non-FEM
continuous monitor, and the continuous monitors can be located with
other SLAMS or at a different location. Consequently, the monitoring
requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be met with filter-based FRMs/
FEMs, continuous FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a combination of
monitors at each required SLAMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans to the EPA.\35\ Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and
the District are the agencies responsible for assuring that the area
meets PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality monitoring requirements. The
District submits annual monitoring network plans (ANPs) 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. Each year, the EPA reviews these ANPs for compliance with
the applicable monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58. On October
29, 2020, the EPA approved those portions of the ``2020 Air Monitoring
Network Plan'' that pertain to the adequacy of the network for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring purposes.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1).
\36\ See ``San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,
2020 Air Monitoring Network Plan,'' dated June 29, 2020, and the
EPA's approval via letter dated October 26, 2020, from Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to
Jon Klassen, Director of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD, with
enclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 2017-2019 period, ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration
data that are eligible for use in determining whether an area has
attained the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS were collected at a total of 17
sites within the San Joaquin Valley. The District operates 11 of these
sites and CARB operates 6 of the sites. All of the sites are designated
as SLAMS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\37\ Based on our review of the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring network, we propose to find that the
monitoring network in the San Joaquin Valley is adequate for the
purpose of collecting ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration data for
use in determining whether the San Joaquin Valley attained the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ There are a number of other PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring
sites within the valley, including other sites operated by 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must submit a
letter to the EPA to certify that all of the ambient concentration and
quality assurance data for the previous year have been submitted to AQS
and that the ambient concentration data are accurate to the best of
their knowledge, taking into consideration the quality assurance
findings. The letter must address data for all FRM and FEM monitors at
SLAMS and special purpose monitoring stations that meet the criteria
specified in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. 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.\38\
SJVUAPCD does the same for data submitted to AQS from monitoring sites
operated by the District.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ We have included CARB's annual data certifications for
2017, 2018, and 2019 in the docket for this action.
\39\ We have included SJVUAPCD's annual data certifications for
2017, 2018, and 2019 in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to data completeness, we determined that the data
collected by CARB and the District met the quarterly completeness
criterion for all 12 quarters of the three-year period at most of the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. More
specifically, among the 17 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring sites from which
regulatory data are available, the data from 1 of the sites did not
meet the 75 percent completeness criterion for at least one quarter in
the 2017-2019 period. 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.\40\ The Manteca monitoring site (AQS ID: 06-077-2010) did not meet
the 75 percent completeness criterion for three quarters in 2019;
however, the resulting 24-hour design value is valid because it is
greater than the level of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TSAs of the CARB and the District
ambient air monitoring programs.\41\ The results of the TSAs do not
preclude the EPA from relying on these data to determine whether the
San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area attained the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 attainment
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See letter dated March 14, 2024, from Matthew Lakin,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Edie Chang,
Deputy Executive Officer, CARB and enclosure titled ``Technical
Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: California Air
Resources Board, December 2021-August 2022.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, based on the EPA's reviews of the relevant ANPs,
certifications, quality assurance data, and TSAs, we propose to find
that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> data collected at the San Joaquin Valley
monitoring sites are suitable for determining whether the San Joaquin
Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 attainment date.
B. The EPA's Evaluation of Attainment
Table 1 of this document lists the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> design
values at each of the 17 monitoring sites within the San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, expressed as a single design value
representing the 2017-2019 period and the annual 98th percentile for
each individual year. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> data show that the design
values for the 2017-2019 period are greater than 35 [micro]g/m\3\ at 16
of the sites in the San Joaquin Valley.
[[Page 16619]]
Table 1--2017-2019 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 98th percentile ([micro]g/m \3\) 2017-2019 24-
------------------------------------------------ hour design
Site name AQS ID value
2017 2018 2019 ([micro]g/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno-Garland.................. 06-019-0011 68.0 63.5 36.9 56
Tranquillity.................... 06-019-2009 34.4 51.4 17.1 34
Clovis-Villa.................... 06-019-5001 50.0 57.0 28.0 45
Fresno-Pacific.................. 06-019-5025 73.2 65.5 37.1 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kern County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield-Golden/M-St......... 06-029-0010 71.3 60.9 44.3 59
Bakersfield-California.......... 06-029-0014 71.8 69.2 43.4 61
Bakersfield-Airport (Planz)..... 06-029-0016 69.7 60.8 46.7 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kings County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corcoran-Patterson.............. 06-031-0004 69.7 78.0 45.1 64
Hanford-Irwin................... 06-031-1004 68.7 78.2 41.1 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madera County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madera-City..................... 06-039-2010 45.8 50.2 23.9 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merced County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merced-Coffee \a\............... 06-047-0003 44.7 56.0 23.4 41
Merced-M St..................... 06-047-2510 40.3 52.7 29.5 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockton-Hazelton \b\........... 06-077-1002 44.2 92.3 32.9 56
Manteca......................... 06-077-2010 36.4 96.9 \Inc\ 26.8 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislaus County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modesto-14th Street............. 06-099-0005 51.1 100.4 28.4 60
Turlock......................... 06-099-0006 48.0 88.6 36.0 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulare County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visalia-Church \c\.............. 06-107-2002 74.6 63.4 45.5 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), Report Request ID: 2335738, November 28, 2025.
Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. The required quarterly 75 percent completeness criterion was not met in one or
more quarters.
\a\ The Merced-Coffee monitoring site was relocated to Merced-Vierra (AQS ID: 06-047-2024) in 2024. The 2017-
2019 data collected at the Merced-Coffee monitoring site are stored in AQS under the Merced-Vierra AQS ID.
\b\ The Stockton-Hazelton monitoring site was relocated to Stockton-University Park (AQS ID: 06-077-1003) in
2022. The 2017-2019 data collected at the Stockton-Hazelton monitoring site are stored in AQS under the
Stockton-University Park AQS ID.
\c\ The Visalia-Church monitoring site was relocated to Visalia-W. Ashland Ave (AQS ID: 06-107-2003) in 2023.
The 2017-2019 data collected at the Visalia-Church monitoring site are stored in AQS under the Visalia-W.
Ashland Ave AQS ID.
The data in Table 1 of this document show that all but one site in
the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 2019. The 2019 24-hour design
value site, i.e., the site with the highest design value based on 2017-
2019 data, is the Corcoran-Patterson site with a 2019 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value of 64 [micro]g/m\3\.
For an area to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by
December 31, 2019, the 2019 design value (reflecting data from 2017-
2019) at each eligible monitoring site must be equal to or less than 35
[micro]g/m\3\. Table 1 of this document shows that the 2019 design
values at all but one site in the San Joaquin Valley area are greater
than 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, based on quality-assured and
certified data for 2017-2019, we are proposing to determine that the
San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS by the 2019 attainment date.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ We note that based on the most recent quality-assured and
certified data for 2022-2024, the San Joaquin Valley continues to
violate the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS with a 2024 design
value of 48 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480),
Report Request ID: 2351309, February 5, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consequences for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area
Failing To Attain Standards by the Attainment Date
The consequences for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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)
of the CAA, a state must submit a SIP revision for the area meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172. Section 172 of the CAA
requires, among other elements, a demonstration of attainment and
reasonable further progress, and contingency measures. Section 189(d)
of the CAA 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 direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor within the area
of not less than five
[[Page 16620]]
percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent
inventory prepared for such area.\43\ The requirement for a new
attainment demonstration under CAA section 189(d) also triggers the
requirement for a SIP revision for quantitative milestones under
section 189(c) that are to be achieved every three years until
redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 81 FR 58010 at 58100, 58158 (August 24, 2016). The EPA
defines PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor as those PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors required to be regulated in the applicable attainment
plan and/or nonattainment new source review program. Id. 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 CAA 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 5 years from the date of the final determination of
failure to attain, except that the EPA may extend the attainment 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.
Section 189(d) of the CAA establishes that a state shall submit the
required SIP revision within 12 months after the applicable attainment
date. In this case, because we are proposing to find that the San
Joaquin Valley area failed to attain by the December 31, 2019
attainment date, the submission deadline for a revised plan for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS pursuant to section 189(d) of the
CAA would have been December 31, 2020. This deadline has already passed
and it is now impossible for the State to submit a revised plan by the
December 31, 2020 submission deadline. Consistent with the EPA's past
practice when application of the particulate matter-specific
requirements of subpart 4 would be impracticable, the EPA proposes to
apply the applicable deadline from the general nonattainment area
requirements found in subpart 1.\44\ Under the CAA subpart 1 section
specifying ``Consequences for failure to attain,'' found in section
179(d)(1), states are required to submit a revision to the applicable
SIP within one year after the EPA publishes the notice of failure to
attain. Consistent with the one-year timeframe provided under CAA
section 179(d)(1), if the EPA finalizes this determination that the San
Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
by the December 31, 2019 attainment date, the EPA proposes to require
that California submit a SIP revision that complies with CAA sections
179(d) and 189(d) within one year of the EPA's final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423 F. 3d 989 (9th
Cir. 2005) (upholding the EPA's application of subpart 1 attainment
deadlines and noting that strictly applying the subpart 4 deadlines
``would leave the EPA with no ability to set a new date at all once
a PM-10 area has missed its deadline.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a final determination by the EPA of failure to attain
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by
the Serious area attainment date would trigger the requirement for the
State to implement contingency measures in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1014.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The State's contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS consist of CARB's ``Smog
Check Contingency Measure,'' the District's contingency provisions
in Rule 8051 (``Open Areas''), and the District's contingency
provisions in Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters'') (89 FR 80749, October 4, 2024). A previous EPA finding
that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards constituted the first triggering event of two triggers for
CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure (90 FR 30607, July 10, 2025).
Thus, a final determination of failure to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS would constitute a second and final
triggering event for that measure in the San Joaquin Valley. A final
determination of failure to attain for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS would constitute a first triggering event of
two triggers for the Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters'') contingency provisions and the only triggering
event for the Rule 8051 (``Open Areas'') contingency provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in section II of this document, we are
proposing to correct our previous erroneous granting of a CAA section
188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2019, to December 31,
2024, and to now deny California's request for an extension. If
finalized, this action would have the effect of reestablishing the
December 31, 2019 attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
Based on our proposal to reestablish the December 31, 2019
attainment date, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA,
the EPA is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley Serious
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area has failed to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 2019. If we finalize our action as proposed, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 within
12 months of the EPA's final determination that the area failed to
attain by the December 31, 2019 attainment date.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until May 4, 2026. We will consider these comments before taking final
action.
V. 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
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action because this action is not significant 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
[[Page 16621]]
state, local, or Tribal Governments, or to the private sector, 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 SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
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.
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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2026.
Michael Martucci,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2026-06441 Filed 4-1-26; 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 April 2, 2026.
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.