Proposed Rule2026-11735
Attainment Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California 2012 Annual PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
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
June 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant an extension of the applicable "Serious" area attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2030, based on a proposed determination that the State has satisfied the statutory criteria for this extension. The EPA will accept comments on this proposed rulemaking during a 30-day public comment period.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35437-35445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11735]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2026-3665; FRL-13380-01-R9]
Attainment Date Extension for the San Joaquin Valley, California
2012 Annual PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant an extension of the applicable ``Serious'' area attainment date
for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2012 annual fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') from December 31, 2025, to December
31, 2030, based on a proposed determination that the State has
satisfied the statutory criteria for this extension. The EPA will
accept comments on this proposed rulemaking during a 30-day public
comment period.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2026-3665 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 disabilities
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: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-2-
1), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. By
phone at (415) 947-4279, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee2ebebfcfda0ecebe0ceebfeefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b373e3e292875393e351b3e2b3a753c342d">[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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Designations,
Classifications, and SIP Revisions
II. Completeness Review of the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for an Extension of a Serious Area
Attainment Date
IV. Review of the State's Request
A. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date
Is Impracticable
B. Compliance With State Implementation Plan Requirements and
Commitments
C. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
D. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious
Alternative Date Practicable
E. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
F. Other Factors That the EPA May Consider
V. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA
has established 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 January 15, 2013, the EPA strengthened the primary
annual NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> by lowering the level from 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\ to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (``2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. Unless
otherwise noted, all references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in
this document are to the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 12.0
[micro]g/m\3\ codified at 40 CFR 50.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA established the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 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. 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 dates), changes
in lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources can emit PM<INF>2.5</INF> directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> or direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF>), or PM<INF>2.5</INF> can form in the atmosphere
(secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>) as a result of various chemical reactions
from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur
oxides (SO<INF>X</INF>), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 81 FR 58010, 58011 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35438]]
B. San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Designations, Classifications, and SIP
Revisions
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.\4\ The area is home to four
million people and is the nation's leading agricultural region.
Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles
wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west,
the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to
the east. Under State law, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') has primary responsibility
for developing plans to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in this
area. The District works cooperatively with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in preparing these plans. Authority for
regulating sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area is
split between the District, which has responsibility for regulating
stationary and most area sources, and CARB, which has responsibility
for regulating most mobile sources and some categories of consumer
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 15, 2015,
the EPA designated and classified the San Joaquin Valley as
``Moderate'' nonattainment for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015) (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2019, CARB made two SIP submissions to address the CAA
requirements associated with the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley: the ``2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard'' (``2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'') and the
``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standards''
(``2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'').\6\ On December 13, 2019, CARB
submitted additional documents supporting the 2016 and 2018
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plans that were inadvertently omitted from the May 10,
2019 SIP submission.\7\ The 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan included a
demonstration, to address the requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B),
that attainment of the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the
December 31, 2021 Moderate area attainment date in the San Joaquin
Valley was impracticable.\8\ The 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan addressed
the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in anticipation of the reclassification of San
Joaquin Valley from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Lastly, in 2023, CARB submitted two additional
SIP revisions addressing contingency measure requirements for the San
Joaquin Valley for numerous standards including the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\9\ These SIP revisions are referred to herein
as the ``2023 Contingency Measure SIP Submittals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CARB submitted the two plans electronically on May 10, 2019,
as an attachment to a letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
\7\ Letter dated December 11, 2019, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, with enclosures.
\8\ 86 FR 67343, 67346 (November 26, 2021).
\9\ CARB submitted the ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure
State Implementation Plan Revision (May 18, 2023)'' and amendments
to District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters) to the EPA on June 8, 2023. See letter dated June 7, 2023,
from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha
Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. CARB submitted
amendments to District Rule 8051 (Open Areas) to the EPA on October
16, 2023. See letter dated October 13, 2023, from Steven S. Cliff,
Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective December 27, 2021, the EPA approved all of the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Moderate area requirements included in the 2016
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan except for contingency measures and, pursuant to
CAA section 188(b)(1), reclassified the area as a Serious nonattainment
area for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\10\ The EPA took final
action to approve the 2023 Contingency Measure SIP Submittals as
satisfying the Moderate contingency measure requirement for the San
Joaquin Valley 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area on
October 4, 2024.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 86 FR 67343, 67346 and 67347 (November 26, 2021).
\11\ 89 FR 80749 (October 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification as a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment
area, the San Joaquin Valley area became subject to a new statutory
attainment date of as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
the end of the tenth calendar year following designation (i.e.,
December 31, 2025) and a requirement to submit a Serious area plan
satisfying the requirements of CAA title I, part D, including the
requirements of subpart 4, for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\12\ As explained in the EPA's final reclassification action, the
Serious area plan for the San Joaquin Valley must include, among other
things, provisions to assure that, under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B), the
best available control measures (BACM) for the control of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors shall be implemented
no later than four years after the area is reclassified and 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 also noted that California may
choose to submit a request for an extension of the December 31, 2025
Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e).\13\ Our
final action on the 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan's Moderate area
requirements and reclassification of the nonattainment area to Serious
noted that the submitted 2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan included Serious
area planning elements for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and
stated that the EPA would evaluate and act on those elements through
subsequent rulemakings as appropriate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 86 FR 67343, 67347 (November 26, 2021).
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA initially proposed to approve the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious area planning requirements in the 2018
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan except for contingency measures.\15\ However,
based on comments received on the proposed approval and a Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision on a San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
rulemaking for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the EPA
reconsidered and proposed to disapprove the District's 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious area plan for certain elements.\16\ Following
the EPA's reproposal to disapprove the Serious area elements in the
2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, CARB withdrew the portions of the 2018
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan addressing the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Serious area requirements.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 86 FR 74310 (December 29, 2021).
\16\ 87 FR 60494 (October 5, 2022).
\17\ Letter dated October 27, 2022, from Samir Shiekh, Executive
Director, SJVUAPCD, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, and letter dated October 27, 2022, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX (both letters submitted electronically October 27,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2023, CARB submitted the ``Initial SIP Requirements
for the 2012 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard,'' which addressed
Serious area requirements for the San Joaquin Valley 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, including emissions inventory and
BACM requirements.\18\ On August 22,
[[Page 35439]]
2024, CARB submitted the ``2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard'' (``2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan'' or ``Plan''), adopted by SJVUAPCD on June 20, 2024, and by CARB
on July 25, 2024.\19\ The 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
addresses the Serious area nonattainment plan requirements for the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area and includes a request under CAA section 188(e) for an extension
of the Serious area attainment date for the area for these NAAQS from
December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter dated November 17, 2023, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX, with enclosures (submitted electronically on November
21, 2023).
\19\ Letter dated August 22, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX, with enclosures (submitted electronically on August
22, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Completeness Review of the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each State to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include
evidence that the State provided adequate public notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing consistent with the EPA's implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. CARB and the District have satisfied
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public
notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2024 San
Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The District provided a public
comment period for the Plan and held a public hearing on June 20, 2024,
and CARB provided a public comment period and held a public hearing
prior to the adoption of the Plan on July 25, 2024. The Plan includes
notices of CARB's and the District's public hearings as evidence that
the hearings were properly noticed.\20\ Thus, our review indicates that
the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan meets the procedural
requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See notices of public hearing included as enclosure to the
Plan submittal letter from CARB to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness
criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 2024 San Joaquin
Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan became complete by operation of law on
February 22, 2025.
III. Clean Air Act Requirements for an Extension of a Serious Area
Attainment Date
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a State may apply to the EPA for a
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to five
years, which the EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain
conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious
area under CAA section 188(e), the State must:
(1) Demonstrate that attainment by the Serious area attainment date
is impracticable;
(2) Demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan;
(3) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the
plan for the area includes the ``most stringent measures'' (MSM) that
are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in
practice in any state and can feasibly be implemented in the area;
(4) Submit a modeled attainment demonstration showing attainment of
the NAAQS in the area by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable; and
(5) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the
Serious area attainment date.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CAA section 188(e) and 40 CFR 51.1005(b). For a discussion
of the EPA's interpretation of the requirements of CAA section
188(e), see 81 FR 58010, 58094 through 58097 (August 24, 2016), and
59 FR 41998, 42002 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State must seek an extension of the Serious area attainment date
at the same time it submits the Serious area attainment plan if the
State cannot demonstrate attainment by the otherwise applicable
statutory attainment date.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA established regulatory requirements and provided further
interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in an
August 24, 2016 final rule entitled ``Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements''
(``PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule''). Under the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2), a State seeking an extension of
the Serious area attainment date under CAA section 188(e) must also
submit a Serious area attainment plan that meets the following
requirements:
(1) Base year and attainment projected emissions inventory
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b);
(2) The MSM requirement in 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(iii) and
51.1010(b), and best available control measures not previously
submitted;
(3) Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements in 40 CFR
51.1011 and 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1)(i);
(4) Reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements in 40 CFR
51.1012;
(5) Quantitative milestone requirements in 40 CFR 51.1013;
(6) Contingency measure requirements in 40 CFR 51.1014; and
(7) Nonattainment new source review plan requirements pursuant to
40 CFR 51.165.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to establishing specific preconditions for an extension
of the Serious area attainment date, CAA section 188(e) provides that
the EPA may consider a number of factors in determining whether to
grant an extension and the appropriate length of time for any such
extension. These factors are: (1) the nature and extent of
nonattainment in the area, (2) the types and numbers of sources or
other emitting activities in the area (including the influence of
uncontrollable natural sources and trans-boundary emissions from
foreign countries), (3) the population exposed to concentrations in
excess of the standard in the area, (4) the presence and concentrations
of potentially toxic substances in the mix of particulate emissions in
the area, and (5) the technological and economic feasibility of various
control measures.\24\ Notably, neither the statutory requirements nor
the discretionary factors identified in CAA section 188(e) include the
specific ambient air quality conditions in CAA section 188(d)(2) that
must be met for an area to qualify for an extension of a Moderate area
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is evaluating the State's request for an extension of the
Serious area attainment date in accordance with these statutory
criteria and regulatory requirements, as further described below.
1. Demonstrate That Attainment by the Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
Section 188(e) of the Act authorizes the EPA to grant a State
request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date if, among
other things, attainment by the date established under CAA section
188(c) would be impracticable. In order to demonstrate
impracticability,
[[Page 35440]]
EPA guidance has stated that the plan must show that the implementation
of BACM and best available control technology (BACT) (and additional
feasible measures) on relevant source categories will not bring the
area into attainment by the statutory Serious area attainment date.\25\
For the San Joaquin Valley, the Serious area attainment date for the
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is
December 31, 2025.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 81 FR 58010, 58094 (August 24, 2016).
\26\ Under CAA section 188(c)(2), the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment. . . .'' The EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS effective April 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015)).
Therefore, the latest permissible attainment date under CAA section
188(c)(2), for purposes of the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in
this area, is December 31, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has defined BACM in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule to mean ``any technologically and economically feasible control
measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years
after the date of reclassification of a Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area to Serious and that generally can achieve greater
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and/or emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan
precursors from sources in the area than can be achieved through the
implementation of RACM on the same source(s). BACM includes BACT.''
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 40 CFR 51.1000 (definitions). In longstanding guidance, the
EPA has similarly defined BACM to mean, ``among other things, the
maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or
source category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts.'' 59 FR
41998, 42010, 42013 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with longstanding EPA guidance,\28\ the preamble to the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule discusses the following steps
for determining BACM and BACT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Develop a comprehensive emissions inventory of the sources of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors;
(2) Identify potential control measures;
(3) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
technologically feasible;
(4) Determine whether an available control measure or technology is
economically feasible; and
(5) Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or
technology can be implemented in whole or in part.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 81 FR 58010, 58083 through 58085 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA allows consideration of factors such as physical plant
layout, energy requirements, needed infrastructure, and workforce type
and habits when considering technological feasibility. For purposes of
evaluating economic feasibility, the EPA allows consideration of
factors such as the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and
cost effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of pollutant reduced by a
measure or technology) associated with the measure or control.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3) and 81 FR 58010, 58041 and 58042
(August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comply With All Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable
Implementation Plan
A second precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment date under CAA section 188(e) is a showing that the State
has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to that
area in the implementation plan. We interpret this criterion to mean
that the state has implemented the control measures and commitments in
the SIP revisions it has submitted to address the applicable
requirements in CAA sections 172 and 189 for that particular
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, in this case the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\31\ For a Serious area attainment date extension request being
submitted simultaneously with the initial Serious area attainment plan
for the area, the EPA interprets CAA section 188(e) not to require the
area to have a fully approved Moderate area attainment plan and to
allow for extension of the attainment date if the area has complied
with all Moderate area requirements and commitments pertaining to that
area in the State's submitted Moderate area implementation plan.\32\
This interpretation is based on the plain language of CAA section
188(e), which requires the State to comply with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Although the EPA has previously interpreted this
requirement as applying to additional PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the
same area (see 85 FR 17382, 17405), this position is not required by
the statute or our regulations, and the EPA no longer believes that
this interpretation is the best available reading of the Act. The
EPA maintains that the implementation of a plan developed for an
entirely separate NAAQS should not have an impact on the relevant
requirements for the NAAQS at issue. There is no indication that
Congress intended such an additional hurdle for areas that are in
nonattainment for multiple NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA believes that
the best interpretation of the statute is that ``compliance with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the
implementation plan'' refers only to the implementation plan for the
particular NAAQS at issue.
\32\ 81 FR 58010, 58095 (August 24, 2016).
\33\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of CAA section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d
1025, amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Demonstrate the Inclusion of the Most Stringent Measures
A third precondition for an extension of the Serious area
attainment under CAA section 188(e) is for the State to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area
includes the MSM that are included in the implementation plan of any
state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area. The EPA has defined the term MSM as ``any
permanent and enforceable control measure that achieves the most
stringent emissions reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions
and/or emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors from among those
control measures which are either included in the SIP for any other
NAAQS, or have been achieved in practice in any state, and that can
feasibly be implemented in the relevant PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
nonattainment area.'' \34\ The EPA has interpreted the Act to require
implementation of MSM as expeditiously as practicable and no later than
one year before the extended Serious area attainment date identified by
the State in its extension request.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 40 CFR 51.1000 and 81 FR 58010, 58096 and 58097 (August 24,
2016); see also 59 FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994) and 65 FR
19964, 19968 (April 13, 2000).
\35\ 81 FR 58010, 58097 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An MSM demonstration must satisfy the requirements of the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule as described in the preamble to
the rule, as follows: \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 40 CFR 51.1010(b) and 81 FR 58010, 58095 through 58097
(August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Update the emissions inventory to identify all sources of
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions in the
nonattainment area;
(2) Identify all potential MSM to reduce emissions from sources of
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors that are
approved into any state implementation plan or used in practice in any
state;
(3) Compare the potential MSM for each relevant source category to
the measures, if any, already adopted for that source category in the
nonattainment area to determine whether such potential MSM would
further reduce emissions and, where the State chooses to reject a
measure from further consideration, demonstrate that it is not
technologically or economically feasible to implement the measure in
whole or in part within five years after
[[Page 35441]]
the applicable attainment date for the area; and
(4) Adopt and implement all potential MSM identified through this
process that collectively will achieve attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than five years after the applicable
attainment date, except those measures for which the state has provided
reasoned justification for rejection, based on technological or
economic feasibility.
Notably, the ``to the satisfaction of the Administrator'' qualifier
on the MSM requirement is an explicit grant by Congress to the EPA of
discretion to determine whether a plan includes MSM.
4. Submit a Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious
Alternative Date Practicable
Section 189(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that the State submit a
demonstration of attainment, including air quality modeling, by the
most expeditious date practicable after the statutory Serious area
attainment date.\37\ Section 188(e) of the CAA states that the
threshold requirement is submission of such a demonstration.\38\
Accordingly, the EPA must evaluate whether the submission containing
the extension request also includes such a demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at 58097.
\38\ The CAA does not require the EPA to act on the submitted
attainment demonstration as a precondition to granting an extension.
Section 188(e) of the Act states that ``[a]t the time of such
application, the State must submit a revision to the implementation
plan that includes a demonstration of attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable.'' In particular, the
statute provides that ``[t]he Administrator may not approve an
extension until the State submits an attainment demonstration for
the area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Apply for an Attainment Date Extension
Finally, the State must apply in writing to the EPA for an
extension of a Serious area attainment date, and this request must
accompany the submission of the modeled attainment demonstration
showing attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable. Additionally, the State must provide the public reasonable
notice and opportunity for a public hearing on the attainment date
extension request before submitting it to the EPA in accordance with
the requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110.
IV. Review of the State's Request
In this section of the preamble, we present our evaluation of the
State's request to extend the Serious area attainment date from
December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2030, under CAA section 188(e).
A. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
The 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes a
demonstration, based on air quality modeling, that even with the
implementation of BACM and BACT for all appropriate sources, attainment
by December 31, 2025, is not practicable. The impracticability
demonstration is described in Chapter 5.2.1 of the Plan and references
the modeling information provided in Appendix J of the Plan. The BACM/
BACT demonstration is included in Appendices C (for District measures)
and D (for State measures) of the Plan. Because of the substantial
overlap in the source categories and controls evaluated for BACM and
those evaluated for MSM, the BACM demonstration is discussed alongside
our evaluation of the Plan's MSM demonstration in section IV.C of this
document.
Table 26 in Appendix J of the plan presents modeled 2030 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values. The results of the District's modeling
are summarized in table 1 of this document.
Table 1--Impracticability Demonstration, 2030 Projected PM2.5 Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Monitored 2030 Projected
annual design annual design
Site AQS ID Name value ([micro]g/ value ([micro]g/
m\3\) m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
060290016............................... Bakersfield--Planz.............. 16.97 11.98
060311004............................... Hanford......................... 15.73 11.04
060290010............................... Bakersfield--Golden............. 15.52 10.82
061072002............................... Visalia......................... 15.43 10.50
060290014............................... Bakersfield--California Ave..... 15.12 10.52
060310004............................... Corcoran........................ 14.95 10.90
060195025............................... Fresno--Hamilton................ 13.99 9.81
060190011............................... Fresno--Garland................. 13.69 9.49
060990006............................... Turlock......................... 12.7 9.69
060195001............................... Clovis.......................... 12.69 8.99
060470003............................... Merced--S. Coffee............... 12.28 9.31
060771002............................... Stockton........................ 12.21 10.16
060392010............................... Madera.......................... 12.11 8.75
060472510............................... Merced--M. Street............... 11.73 8.73
060990005............................... Modesto......................... 11.16 8.54
060772010............................... Manteca......................... 10.37 8.38
060192009............................... Tranquillity.................... 8.19 6.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-3.
The results of the District's modeling indicate that, even with the
implementation of the control strategy in the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan according to the implementation schedules in
Chapter 4 of the Plan, the San Joaquin Valley area will narrowly attain
the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by 2030. The District's
demonstration of attainment in the San Joaquin Valley by 2030 relies in
part on measures that will be implemented between the end of 2025 and
2030; these measures account for over 4.3 tons per day of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions and 0.2 tons per day of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions reductions between the end of 2025 and
2030.\39\ Accounting for the timing of these emissions reductions and
the narrow margin by which the nonattainment area is projected to
attain in 2030, the
[[Page 35442]]
District's modeling supports the conclusion that attainment of the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the current December 31, 2025
attainment date is impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Tables 4-2,
4-3, 4-4, and 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the information in the San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, we have reviewed recent PM<INF>2.5</INF>
monitoring data from the San Joaquin Valley. These data show that
annual average PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the San Joaquin Valley
continue to be above the 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ level of the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 2023 or 2024 at seven monitoring sites.
Furthermore, based on monitored ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality
data from 2023 and 2024, we determined that the maximum 2025 annual
average concentration that would result in an attaining 2025 design
value (i.e., a 3-year average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration of 12.04
[micro]g/m\3\) for each monitoring site with annual averages in 2023
and 2024 above the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and we compared these
concentrations to the lowest recorded annual average PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations at the site. This comparison is shown in table 2 below.
Table 2--Impracticability Demonstration, 2023-2024 Monitored Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 2025
annual average Lowest recorded
2023 Annual 2024 Annual PM2.5 annual average
average PM2.5 average PM2.5 concentration PM2.5 Percentage below
Site name concentration Concentration Resulting in concentration lowest recorded
([micro]g/m\3\) ([micro]g/m\3\) attaining 2025 2012-2024 annual average
design value ([micro]g/m\3\)
([micro]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno--Foundry.......................................... 12.5 13.5 10.1 12.5 19.2%
Fresno--Pacific.......................................... 12.6 12.7 10.8 11.2 3.6
Bakersfield--Golden/M St................................. 13.6 12.9 9.7 12.4 21.8
Bakersfield--California.................................. 12.0 12.7 11.4 11.9 4.2
Bakersfield--Airport (Planz)............................. 12.5 15.6 8.1 12.5 35.2
Hanford--Irwin........................................... 12.5 11.8 11.8 11.8 0.0
Visalia--W. Ashland Avenue............................... 11.7 13.0 11.5 11.7 1.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), Report Request ID 2384983, May 28, 2026.
The EPA found that three monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley
Air Basin would need to have 2025 annual mean concentrations 19 percent
or more below their corresponding historical lows in order to attain by
the end of 2025. The most extreme example is the Bakersfield-Airport
(Planz) monitoring site, which would require concentrations
approximately 35 percent below the lowest previously recorded
concentration at this site. Considering the District's assertion that
the control strategy in the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan includes all BACM and MSM, there is no indication that the control
strategy could achieve such steep reductions so quickly.
In sum, the District's air quality modeling projections for 2030,
which account for the implementation of controls according to the
implementation schedules submitted in the Plan, and monitored air
quality data from 2023 and 2024 indicate that it is impracticable for
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area to show attainment of the
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 2025. Thus, our
review of the impracticability demonstration and related information in
the Plan as well as monitoring data from the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area indicate that the area could not practicably attain
the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of December 31, 2025.
B. Compliance With State Implementation Plan Requirements and
Commitments
We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented
the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172
and 189 for the relevant PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the nonattainment
area.\40\ For the San Joaquin Valley for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the State has submitted, and the EPA has
approved into the California SIP, the control measure requirements and
commitments in the 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that pertained to the
Moderate area planning requirements for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In the remainder of this section, we describe
the State's and District's implementation of those control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 81 FR 58010, 58094 (August 24, 2016). Under 40 CFR
51.1005(b)(ii), a State must have complied with all requirements and
commitments in the applicable implementation plan. The applicable
attainment plan for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area
for which a State seeks an attainment date extension under 40 CFR
51.1005(a)(2)(ii) is defined as the Moderate area plan submitted to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1003(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section I of this document, CARB submitted the 2016
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to the EPA on May 10, 2019. On November 26, 2021,
the EPA approved all but the contingency measure element of the
submitted SIP revision as meeting all applicable Moderate area
requirements for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\41\ The EPA
approved the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> Moderate area contingency
measure element for the San Joaquin Valley on October 4, 2024.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 86 FR 67343 (November 26, 2021).
\42\ 89 FR 80749 (October 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan addresses
compliance with the applicable 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Moderate area
planning requirements and commitments for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in Chapter 5.2.2 of the Plan. While the 2016
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes an evaluation of potential control
measures for adoption as RACM, RACT, or additional reasonable measures,
the District did not identify any feasible control measures beyond
those that had already been adopted and implemented, and thus the
District did not include any commitments for additional measures for
purposes of meeting the Moderate area planning requirements. Given that
the EPA has fully approved the Moderate area planning requirements for
the area and that there are no outstanding commitments or other
obligations relating to those requirements, our review indicates that
the State has complied with all requirements and commitments in the
plan revisions it has submitted to address the applicable requirements
in CAA sections 172 and 189 for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
[[Page 35443]]
C. Demonstration That the Implementation Plan Includes the Most
Stringent Measures
Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious
nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the State must, among
other things, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that
the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that
are included in the implementation plan of any state, or are achieved
in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.
The State must implement MSM as expeditiously as practicable and no
later than the beginning of the year containing the attainment date
identified by the State in its extension request, i.e., in this case,
by January 1, 2030.\43\ We interpret this criterion to mean that the
State must demonstrate to the EPA's satisfaction that its Serious area
plan includes the most stringent measures that are included in the
implementation plan of any state, or achieved in practice in any state,
and can feasibly be implemented in the area. The requirements that a
State's MSM evaluation must satisfy are established in the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule and are described in section
III.C of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 81 FR 58010, 58097 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan discusses the
Plan's control strategy, including compliance with the BACM and MSM
requirements, in Appendices C and D, including analyses by the District
and CARB, respectively, of source categories under their respective
jurisdictions. Emissions inventories identifying sources of emissions
of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors \44\ in the
San Joaquin Valley are described and included in Appendix B of the
Plan. The evaluations of CARB and District measures each include the
components of BACM and MSM evaluations as outlined in the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, generally: (1) an emissions
inventory identifying sources of emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
and applicable precursors; (2) identifying potential control measures
for the sources identified in step 1; (3) assessing the stringency and
feasibility of the control measures identified in step 2; and (4)
adoption and implementation of the feasible control measures identified
in step 3.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Appendix F of 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
contains a demonstration that emissions of VOC, SO<INF>X</INF>, and
ammonia do not contribute significantly to exceedances of the 2012
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area and that such emissions should be excluded from
certain CAA requirements (including BACM and MSM), consistent with
the EPA's recommendations in the ``Fine Particulate Matter
(PM<INF>2.</INF>) Precursor Demonstration Guidance'' (see memorandum
dated May 30, 2019, from Scott Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), and Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment
Division, OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
with attachment titled ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursor Demonstration
Guidance;'' available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/transmittal_memo_and_pm25_precursor_demo_guidance_5_30_19.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/transmittal_memo_and_pm25_precursor_demo_guidance_5_30_19.pdf</a>). The
BACM and MSM evaluations in the Plan therefore focus on sources of
emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and excludes
sources of VOC and SO<INF>X,</INF> and ammonia.
\45\ 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, section
5.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's demonstration includes descriptions of CARB's key mobile
source programs and regulations and a comprehensive evaluation of on-
road and non-road mobile source regulatory actions taken by CARB and
other states. Based on its review, CARB determined that its control
program for sources under its jurisdiction satisfies BACM and MSM
requirements.
The District followed a similar process to identify candidate BACM/
MSM measures that are technologically and economically feasible for
stationary and area sources under its jurisdiction. The District
structured its evaluation around its existing control program; for each
existing District rule, the District identified the affected sources
and associated emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>,
identified potential opportunities for further emissions reductions by
comparing the District rule to Federal and State rules and regulations
and rules in other California air districts (as well as potential new
technologies not yet required in other areas, in some instances) and
evaluated technological and economic feasibility of each potential
emissions reduction opportunity. For most source categories, the
District found that its existing control measures provide the maximum
degree of emission reduction required or implemented in any other area.
For all identified potential emission reduction opportunities, the
District concluded that the potential measure was infeasible due to
economic and/or technological considerations. Thus, the District
concluded that, for all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area, the District's existing control program provides for the maximum
degree of emission reduction that has been required or achieved in
other areas that can feasibly be implemented in the nonattainment area
and therefore meets or exceeds BACM and MSM requirements.
Based upon our review, the EPA has determined that the 2024 San
Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan contains the required elements of
BACM and MSM evaluations as defined in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
Requirements Rule. The emissions inventory identifies all sources of
emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and applicable PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors. For the source categories identified in the emissions
inventory for the nonattainment area, CARB and the District followed
EPA guidance to identify potential measures from other areas' control
requirements for similar sources, the EPA's technical support documents
from rulemakings on SJVUAPCD control measure SIP submittals, potential
control measures identified in previous SJVUAPCD plan submittals, the
EPA's menu of control measures, and EPA guidance documents.
Our review indicates that CARB and the District conducted thorough
analyses of emissions sources in the nonattainment area and potential
control measures for those sources. We note that EPA last approved
SJVUAPCD's control program as satisfying BACM and MSM in our final rule
granting a CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension for the San
Joaquin Valley 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area on July 22,
2020.\46\ Parts of EPA's analysis were challenged and ultimately upheld
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\47\ The EPA is not aware of more
stringent and feasible measures implemented in other areas of the
country beyond those included in the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. Based on our evaluation of the current
submission, as supported by the analysis conducted in our previous 2020
evaluation, our review of the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan indicates that the Plan includes the requisite BACM demonstration
and includes the MSM that are included in the implementation plan of
any state, or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly
be implemented in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020). The EPA's evaluation of MSM
supporting the attainment date extension for the San Joaquin Valley
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area is included in the EPA's
proposed rulemaking at 85 FR 17382 (March 27, 2020) and the
technical support document included in the docket for the proposed
rulemaking titled ``Technical Support Document, EPA Evaluation of
BACM/MSM, San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the 2006
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,'' February 2020, docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2019-
0318-0005.
\47\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, 20-72780 (9th
Cir., April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35444]]
D. Demonstration of Attainment by the Most Expeditious Alternative Date
Practicable
Section 188(e) of the Act states that at the time of its
application for an extension of an attainment deadline, the State must
submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable and that the EPA may not approve the
extension until such a demonstration has been submitted. Section
189(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the CAA also provides that a State seeking an
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) must submit a
demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable.
For the purpose of the CAA section 188(e) requirement that the
District submit a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable, the EPA's review
of the submission indicates that the submission contains the requisite
demonstration. Chapter 5.2.4.2 and Appendix J of the 2024 San Joaquin
Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan contain the State's demonstration that the
implementation of all feasible control measures in the San Joaquin
Valley, as required in the Plan, will provide for attainment of the
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as
expeditiously as practicable, i.e., by December 31, 2030. Furthermore,
the District cites Appendix G of the Plan as validating the assertion
in the Plan that the San Joaquin Valley will attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable.\48\ Appendix G addresses the reasonable
further progress, quantitative milestone, and contingency measure
requirements and includes an evaluation of potential control measures
for consideration as contingency measures. As a result of this
evaluation, the District concludes that the District and CARB are
currently implementing the most stringent measures feasible, and no
opportunities exist for additional measures beyond those adopted in the
Plan, supporting the District's position that the San Joaquin Valley
could not practicably attain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
sooner than December 31, 2030, as projected in the attainment
demonstration in the Plan. In addition, the RFP demonstration in
Appendix G reports the most expeditious timeline by which the San
Joaquin Valley can achieve emissions reductions from the implementation
of BACM and MSM in light of factors such as the timeline required for
the development, adoption, and implementation of the rules included in
the Plan, supporting the District's position that the San Joaquin
Valley could not practicably attain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS sooner than December 31, 2030, as projected in the attainment
demonstration in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Chapter
5.2.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA will evaluate this analysis in a future rulemaking
action, for the purpose of the CAA section 188(e) extension
prerequisite that a complete submission from the State must contain the
requisite demonstration under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii), our review
of the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan indicates that the
State has made such a submission.
E. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
As discussed in section I.B of this document, the Serious area
attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2012 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31,
2025. The remaining criterion for an extension of the attainment date
beyond this statutory attainment date is that the State must apply for
such extension. In the 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,
CARB and SJVUAPCD submitted a complete application for an extension of
the Serious area attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley to December
31, 2030, for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\49\ In accordance
with the requirements of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule in
40 CFR 51.1005(b)(1), the State's submission includes demonstrations
that attainment by the Serious area attainment date is impracticable,
that the State has complied with all requirements and commitments in
the applicable SIP, and that the plan includes MSM. Additionally, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1005(b)(2), the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan contains all of the required components of a
Serious area plan accompanying a request for extension of the
attainment date under CAA section 188(e), as follows: (1) base year and
attainment projected emissions inventories, (2) provisions to implement
MSM and BACM, (3) a modeled attainment demonstration, (4) RFP
provisions, (5) quantitative milestone provisions, (6) contingency
measure provisions, and (7) nonattainment new source review plan
provisions.\50\ As discussed in section II of this document, the EPA
previously found that the State provided the public reasonable notice
and an opportunity for a public hearing on the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, including the attainment date extension request,
before submitting it to the EPA, in accordance with the requirements
for SIP revisions in CAA section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ CARB Resolution 24-10 (July 25, 2024), (adopting the Plan
and directing the CARB Executive Officer to submit the Plan to the
EPA as a SIP revision), SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2024-06-
10 (June 20, 2024) (adopting the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan), and 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Plan, Chapter 5.1, p. 5-2.
\50\ Letter dated August 22, 2024, from Steven S. Cliff,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX (transmitting the adopted 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to the EPA for inclusion in the California
SIP) (submitted electronically on August 22, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Other Factors That the EPA May Consider
Finally, as noted section III of this document, CAA section 188(e)
lists five additional factors that the EPA may consider in deciding
whether to grant an attainment date extension and the length for such
extension. These factors include: (1) the nature and extent of the
nonattainment problem; (2) the types and numbers of sources or other
emitting activities in the area (including the influence of
uncontrollable natural sources and international transport); (3) the
population exposed to concentrations in excess of the standard; (4) the
presence and concentration of potentially toxic substances in the mix
of particulate emissions in the area; and (5) the technological and
economic feasibility of various control measures. In evaluating these
factors, we have focused on the nature and extent of the nonattainment
area problem and the technological and economic feasibility of
additional control measures.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has made significant progress
towards improving air quality and meeting the NAAQS despite the
Valley's vast population and the unique meteorological and
topographical factors that result in the highest levels of ambient
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels on an annual basis in the country.\51\ In the
years prior to the adoption of the 2024 San Joaquin Valley
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, CARB and the District developed and implemented
several comprehensive plans (e.g., the 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and
2018 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan) to provide for attainment of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone NAAQS. These plans have resulted in the
adoption and implementation of many new rules and amendments to
existing rules across source categories. These regulations and
strategies have yielded significant reductions from sources under the
[[Page 35445]]
State's and District's jurisdictions. As a result of these already-
adopted State and District measures, sources in the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area are already subject to the most stringent rules in
the country, leaving fewer viable opportunities to reduce emissions in
light of the extreme technological and economic challenges present in
the nonattainment area, as demonstrated by the controls analysis in the
2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\52\ The State and
District continue to pursue new opportunities to achieve further
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor
emissions, as outlined in the Plan; \53\ however, the EPA acknowledges
the scarcity of additional controls and the timeline needed to develop,
adopt, and implement such measures. These factors generally support a
longer time frame for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ For a discussion of challenges and historical air quality
trends, see Chapters 2.2 (``Air Quality Challenges'') and 2.3
(``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Trends'') of the 2024 San Joaquin
Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.
\52\ 2024 San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Chapter 4,
Appendix C, and Appendix D.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
For the reasons discussed in this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
proposing to grant the State's request for an extension of the Serious
area attainment date from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2030,
based on a conclusion that the State has satisfied the requirements for
such an extension in section 188(e) of the Act.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days.
VI. 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
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 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. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to approve
a State request for an attainment date extension as meeting Federal
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does
not apply to this action.
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
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 2026.
Michael Martucci,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2026-11735 Filed 6-10-26; 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 June 11, 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.