[Federal Register: August 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45039-45040]
[DOCID:fr10au07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2365-040]

Madison Paper Industries, Inc.; Notice of Temporary Variance
Request and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 6, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for temporary modification of the
project operation to lower the water level in the project Forebay.
    b. Project No.: 2365-040.
    c. Date Filed: August 1, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Madison Paper Industries, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Anson Project.
    f. Location: On the Kennebec River, in Somerset County, Maine. The
project does not utilize federal or tribal lands.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.200.
    h. Applicant Contact: David Lovely, Hydro Supervisor, Madison Paper
Industries, P.O. Box 129, 3 Main Street, Madison, Maine 04950-0129,
(207) 696-1225.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protest:
August 20, 2007.
    Please include the project number (P-2365-040) on any comments or
motions filed. All documents (original and seven copies) should be
filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include
the project number (P-2365-040) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The license request approval to
temporarily modify the operation of the project by lowering the water
level in the project forebay to allow repair of the western forebay
wall.
    This maintenance work will consist of refacing the existing wall
through the placement of forms and pouring concrete. In order to expose
the area to be repaired such that the majority of the work will occur
above the waterline, MPI proposes to temporarily lower the water lever
of the forebay and headpond by approximately 2.5 feet from normal pond
level of 248.15, at the top of the inflatable flashboards. The licensee
proposes to gradually lower the forebay from its normal full pool
elevation and to maintain the reduced water level via operation of the
powerhouse turbines and deflating the inflatable flashboards and waste
gate. The required minimum downstream flow (1,540 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less) in the Anson tailrace will be maintained during this
drawdown period via the turbines and flashboards/waste gate as well.
The licensee anticipates a need to maintain this lowered elevation for
intermittent periods of time for up to two months beginning on or about
August 6, 2007 while the work is being accomplished. If there is
sufficient inflow to the project, the licensee proposed to raise the
pond level to the normal operating elevation on weekends and other
periods when the Contractor is not working. Once the repair work, along
the wall progresses above the lower elevation the pond level will be
returned to the normal operating level.
    The licensee proposes to maintain minimum downstream flows while
refilling the project forebay by gradually filling the pond through
maintaining a higher inflow than outflow, until the pond level is
returned to normal.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection and
reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888
First St., NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. This filing may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also

available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: (Anyone may submit
comments, a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210.
385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for
the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``Comments'', ``Protest'', or ``Motion to Intervene'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15645 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9331-9332]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-28-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request for Extension
of Time

    Take notice that on February 3, 2021, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (Columbia) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until October 31, 2021, to
complete construction of the Line SM-116 Forced Relocation Project
(Project) and make the Project available for service, as the Prior
Notice authorized on February 25, 2020.\1\ The Commission's regulations
establish that the Project be completed within one year of the date the
Project was authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 88 (Jan. 2, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Project consists of the relocation and/or abandonment of
segments of Columbia's existing Line SM-116 due to highwall and area
surface mining to be performed by Central Appalachian Mining on their
Millseat Surface Mine. The relocation and/or abandonment activities
will take place in Mingo County, West Virginia. Columbia stated in the
Prior Notice application that the new Project infrastructure will have
an equivalent designed delivery capacity as the facilities being
abandoned and will not result in a reduction or abandonment of service.
    In its Extension of Time request, Columbia stated that the
contractor will not be able to meet the original in-service date
because the Project has experienced significant delays due to rainfall
on the site which delayed construction and created safety concerns for
the personnel in traversing the construction work area safely.
Additionally, the construction schedule was negatively impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on the extension motion
may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish
to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this
request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR
157.10).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA
facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For
those extension requests that are contested,\3\ the Commission acting
as a whole will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\4\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\5\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the Certificate Order, including whether the
Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience
or necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for
the certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\6\
At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and/or necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance. The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all those extension requests that are
uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2020).
    \4\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \5\ Id. P 40.
    \6\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning COVID-19, issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests

and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23rd,
2021.

    Dated: February 8, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02898 Filed 2-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39263-39264]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0434]

Guidance for Humanitarian Device Exemption Holders, Institutional
Review Boards, Clinical Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Humanitarian Device Exemption Regulation; Questions and Answers;
Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Humanitarian Device Exemption
(HDE) Regulation: Questions and Answers.'' This guidance answers
commonly asked questions about Humanitarian Use Devices (HUDs) and
applications for HDEs.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance
at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome
at any time.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) Regulation:
Questions and Answers'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers,
International, and Consumer Assistance (DSMICA), Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg.66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
request, or fax your request to CDRH at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The guidance may
also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-
1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sheila Brown, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1651, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-
17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This guidance answers commonly asked questions about HUDs and
applications for HDE authorized by section 510(m)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360(m)(2)). This
update of the version issued in 2006 reflects additional requirements
set forth in the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-85). The Pediatric Medical Device Safety and
Improvement Act of 2007 includes a provision requiring that all
original HDE applications include both a description of any pediatric
subpopulations that suffer from the disease or condition that the
device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure, and the number of
affected pediatric patients (new section 515A(a)(2) of the act). It
also amends section 520(m) of the act to exempt some HUDs from the
prohibition on profit (new section 520(m)(6) of the act). Specifically,
HDE applications indicated for use in pediatric patients that are
approved on or after September 27, 2007, may be assigned an annual
distribution number (ADN) and be sold for profit, subject to certain
restrictions. Finally, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and
Improvement Act of 2007 includes a provision requiring that the agency
provide guidance to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) on the review of
HUDs. This update of the HDE guidance

includes 29 specific questions and answers for IRBs as well as guidance
to HDE holders on whether and how they may become eligible to receive
profit from the sale of their device. In the Federal Register of August
5, 2008 (73 FR 45460), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public
comment. The comment period closed on November 3, 2008. FDA published a
30-day notice on September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50214), but republished a
30-day notice on February 18, 2010 (75 FR 7270), to provide a more
descriptive response to the comments received in response to the August
5, 2008, notice. This document supersedes: Humanitarian Device
Exemption (HDE) Regulation: Questions and Answers, issued July 18,
2006.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on the ``HDE Regulation: Questions and
Answers.'' It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person
and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach
may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. To receive ``HDE Regulation: Questions and
Answers,'' you may either send an e-mail request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to
301-847-8149 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number
1668 to identify the guidance you are requesting. A search capability
for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/
default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://
www.regulations.gov or the CBER Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/
BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
Guidances/default.htm.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in this guidance were approved under OMB
control number 0910-0661, May 31, 2013, expiration date.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: July 1, 2010.
Nancy Stade,
Acting Associate Director for Regulations and Policy, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-16548 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA

FROM:		Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

DATE: 		September 10, 2008

SUBJECT:	Phase II Facilities with Thermal Discharge Limits

Tetra Tech was tasked with determining the number of facilities who are subject to thermal discharge limits in their NPDES permits.  While summary-level data of this type is not readily available, a query of EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) provides some insight to the issue.

PCS was queried for all of the Phase II facilities (by NPDES permit number) and cooling water and temperature-related fields were examined.  Data was further screened by eliminating records that appear to refer to permit conditions that are no longer contained in the facility's current permit (e.g., optional monitoring and deleted monitoring conditions fields).  The tables below shows the results of the analysis: approximately 78 facilities (of 544 or 14%) appear to have thermal discharge limits of some type.

Note that this analysis has significant limitations and likely represents an approximate number of facilities; most likely it represents the minimum number of facilities with thermal discharge conditions.  These limitations include:

   * Several states do not submit information to PCS
   * Some states may not input data to all fields
   * PCS may not adequately display narrative limits (thermal limits often narrative, such as a limit not to exceed 1°C within a radius of 1000 meters of the discharge)

In short, a detailed review of each individual permit and fact sheet would be required to most accurately assess the presence and scope of thermal discharge permit conditions at these facilities.

Thermal Limits by Type

                             Number of facilities
                               Percent of total
Water Temperature
                                      32
                                    41.03%
Temperature Difference between Sample and Upstream
                                       4
                                     5.13%
BTUs/Heat Rejected
                                      21
                                    26.92%
Combination of the Above
                                      21
                                    26.92%
Total
                                      78

Thermal Limits by Monitoring Frequency

                             Number of facilities
                               Percent of total
Continuous
                                      17
                                    21.79%
Monthly
                                       3
                                     3.85%
Daily/Weekly
                                      37
                                    47.44%
Hourly
                                       0
                                     0.00%
Combination
                                       7
                                     8.97%
Not Specified
                                      14
                                    17.95%
Total
                                      78

Thermal Limits by EPA Region

                             Number of facilities
                               Percent of total
Region 1
                                       5
                                     6.41%
Region 2
                                       9
                                    11.54%
Region 3
                                      10
                                    12.82%
Region 4
                                      17
                                    21.79%
Region 5
                                      32
                                    41.03%
Region 6
                                       1
                                     1.28%
Region 7
                                       3
                                     3.85%
Region 8
                                       1
                                     1.28%
Region 9
                                       0
                                     0.00%
Region 10
                                       0
                                     0.00%
Total
                                      78


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4503-4508]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0261; FRL-8969-02-R9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans and Determination of Attainment by the Attainment
Date; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Area and Section 189(d)
Plan for Attainment of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve in part and disapprove in part portions of state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the 1997 24-hour fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is approving all but the
contingency measures element of the submitted SIP revisions as meeting
all applicable ``Serious'' area and CAA section 189(d) requirements for
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is disapproving the
contingency measures element. The EPA is also

finalizing a determination that the San Joaquin Valley air quality
planning area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. This determination is based on
sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data for 2018-2020. Based on
our finding that the San Joaquin Valley area has attained the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, we are
also finalizing a determination that the requirement for contingency
measures will no longer apply to the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Lastly, the EPA is
issuing a protective finding for transportation conformity
determinations for the disapproval of the contingency measures element.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0261. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
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: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3877, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

    On September 24, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve in part and
disapprove in part portions of SIP revisions submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to meet CAA requirements for the
1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 nonattainment area.\1\ The San Joaquin Valley is
classified as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and is also subject to CAA section 189(d)
requirements because of the failure of the area to attain the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's original Serious area
attainment date (i.e., December 31, 2015). The EPA's determination that
the area failed to attain the original December 31, 2015 attainment
date triggered the requirement for the state to submit the SIP
revisions on which the EPA is taking final action in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 53150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revisions on which we proposed action are those portions of
the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards'' (``2018 PM2.5 Plan'') \2\ and the ``San Joaquin
Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP Strategy'') \3\ that pertain
to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CARB submitted the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and Valley State SIP Strategy to the EPA as a
revision to the California SIP on May 10, 2019. We refer to the
portions of these two SIP submissions that pertain to the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS collectively as the ``SJV PM2.5
Plan'' or ``Plan.'' The SJV PM2.5 Plan addresses the Serious
area and CAA section 189(d) attainment plan requirements for the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, including the
demonstration that the area would attain those NAAQS by December 31,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 2018 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on November
15, 2018, and by CARB on January 24, 2019. The 2018 PM2.5
Plan includes a revised version of Appendix H submitted by CARB as a
technical correction on February 11, 2020.
    \3\ The Valley State SIP Strategy was adopted by CARB on October
25, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the 2013 base year emissions
inventories, the precursor demonstration, the best available control
measures/best available control technology (BACM/BACT) demonstration,
the five percent annual emissions reduction demonstration, the
attainment demonstration, the reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration, and the quantitative milestones demonstration in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan as meeting the Serious nonattainment area and CAA
section 189(d) planning requirements for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We also proposed to approve the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2017 and 2020 and the inter-pollutant trading
mechanism provided for use in transportation conformity analyses.
    Based on complete (or otherwise deemed sufficient), quality-
assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2018-2020 monitoring period, the EPA also proposed to determine that
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2020 attainment date.\4\
This determination was based in part on the EPA's July 13, 2021
concurrence \5\ on a demonstration provided by CARB that a wildfire
exceptional event contributed to exceedances at eight monitoring sites
within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area during August 20-24,
2020, and exclusion of these data from our evaluation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA, 2020 Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report
(``Design Value Report''), AMP480, accessed January 11, 2022. The
Design Value Report excludes measurements with regionally concurred
exceptional event flags. As discussed in our proposed action, at the
time of our proposal, AQS reports for 24-hour PM2.5
design values were available only for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the pollutant standard. Following our
proposed action, the AQS system was updated to also report 24-hour
PM2.5 design values for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS as the pollutant standard. 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N specifies
the data handling and design value calculations for both the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The data values derived using the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the pollutant standard are the same as
those derived for the EPA's proposed action using the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the pollutant standard except for minor
differences in the 2018 98th percentiles at the Bakersfield-Airport
(Planz) (AQS ID: 06-029-0016) and Madera-Avenue 14 (AQS ID: 06-039-
2010) sites, and the 2020 design value at the Madera-Avenue 14 site,
due to data handling differences related to the levels of the two
standards. The 24-hour PM2.5 design values at all
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for
the 2018-2020 data period calculated using the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as the pollutant standard are equal to or
less than 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., the level of the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS). The January 11, 2022 Design Value Report
reflects the AQS system update to report 24-hour PM2.5
design values for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as the
pollutant standard.
    \5\ Letter dated July 13, 2021, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Michael
Benjamin, Division Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division,
CARB.
    \6\ 86 FR 53150, 53183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we proposed to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has
attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31,
2020 attainment date, we also proposed to determine that the
requirement for a post-attainment milestone would no longer apply in
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for these NAAQS.\7\ We
explained that the purpose of the post-attainment quantitative
milestone is to provide the EPA with the tools necessary to monitor

the area's continued progress toward attainment in the event the area
fails to attain by the attainment date,\8\ and that once an area has
attained the NAAQS, ``no further milestones are necessary or
meaningful.'' \9\ Similarly, the section 189(c)(2) requirement to
submit a quantitative milestone report no longer applies when the area
has attained the standard.\10\ Accordingly, we proposed to find that
upon a final determination that the San Joaquin Valley area has
attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment
date, the post-attainment RFP milestone requirement will no longer
apply and CARB would no longer be required to submit a quantitative
milestone report for the San Joaquin Valley under 40 CFR 51.1013(b) for
the purposes of the 2023 post-attainment milestone year identified in
the Plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 53173.
    \8\ 81 FR 58010, 58064 (August 24, 2016).
    \9\ 75 FR 13710, 13713 (March 23, 2010).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 86 FR 53150, 53173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, because the EPA does not believe that it is necessary to
demonstrate conformity using post-attainment year budgets in areas that
attain by the attainment date, we proposed that the requirement for
post-attainment year (i.e., 2023) motor vehicle emissions budgets would
no longer apply in the area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 53178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA proposed to disapprove the contingency measures
element of the SJV PM2.5 Plan because of several
deficiencies, including that the contingency provisions of the
District's Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters'') do not address the potential for failures to meet RFP, to
meet a quantitative milestone, or to submit a quantitative milestone
report.\13\ In addition, the contingency measure provisions of Rule
4901 are not structured to achieve any additional emissions reductions
if the EPA were to find that only certain counties in the San Joaquin
Valley are violating the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as of the
attainment date, and thus only provide for reductions under certain
circumstances. However, the EPA also proposed to find that the
contingency measures requirement for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS will no longer apply in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area
if we finalize the determination that the area attained by the December
31, 2020 attainment date. Because we proposed to approve the RFP
analysis, the modeled attainment demonstration, and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets, we also proposed to issue a protective finding under
40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) in the event we finalize the disapproval of the
contingency measures.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 53175-53176.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our September 24, 2021 proposed rule for additional
background and a detailed explanation of the rationale for our proposed
action.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on October 25, 2021. We received one set of comments in
support of our proposal.\15\ These comments are included in the docket
for this action and do not require a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comment received October 25, 2021, from the North American
Insulation Manufacturer's Association to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2021-0261), including attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in detail in our proposed action, the EPA
is finalizing our determination that the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
by the December 31, 2020 attainment date, based on complete (or
otherwise deemed sufficient), quality-assured, and certified ambient
air quality monitoring data for the 2018-2020 monitoring period.\16\
The EPA is taking this final action pursuant to CAA sections 179(c)(1)
and 188(b)(2). This final determination that the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment. Under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), redesignations of nonattainment areas to
attainment require states to meet a number of additional statutory
criteria, including the EPA's approval of a SIP revision demonstrating
maintenance of the standard for 10 years after redesignation. The
designation status of the San Joaquin Valley area will remain Serious
nonattainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA, 2020 Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report,
AMP480, accessed January 11, 2022. The Design Value Report excludes
measurements with regionally concurred exceptional event flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, for the reasons discussed in detail in our proposed action,
under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final action to approve
in part and disapprove in part portions of the SJV PM2.5
Plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area as follows:
    (1) We are approving the following elements as meeting the Serious
nonattainment area planning requirements:
    (a) The 2013 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(b);
    (b) the BACM/BACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a);
    (c) the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable as meeting
the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1011(b);
    (d) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and
    (e) the quantitative milestone demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013;
    (2) We are approving the following elements as meeting the CAA
section 189(d) planning requirements:
    (a) The 2013 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(c);
    (b) the BACM/BACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 189(a)(1)(C) \17\ and 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed in the proposal, a section 189(d) plan must
address any outstanding ``Moderate'' or Serious area requirements
that have not previously been approved (86 FR 53150, 53154-53155).
Because we have not previously approved a subpart 4 reasonably
available control measure (RACM) demonstration for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area, we are also approving the BACM/BACT
demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan as meeting the
subpart 4 RACM/reasonably available control technology requirement
for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) the demonstration that the Plan will, at a minimum, achieve an
annual five percent reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and
40 CFR 51.1010(c);
    (d) the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable as meeting
the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1011(b);
    (e) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and
    (f) the quantitative milestone demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013;

    (3) We are approving the following motor vehicle emissions budgets
for 2017 and 2020 as meeting the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and
40 CFR part 93, subpart A:

           Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
                                         [annual average, tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2017 (RFP Year)             2020 (Attainment Year)
                     County                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................................             0.9            28.5             0.9            25.3
Kern (San Joaquin Valley portion................             0.8            28.0             0.8            23.3
Kings...........................................             0.2             5.8             0.2             4.8
Madera..........................................             0.2             5.3             0.2             4.2
Merced..........................................             0.3            10.7             0.3             8.9
San Joaquin.....................................             0.7            14.9             0.6            11.9
Stanislaus......................................             0.4            11.9             0.4             9.6
Tulare..........................................             0.4            10.8             0.4             8.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-1. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton.

    We are limiting the duration of our approval of the budgets to last
until new budgets based on updated planning data and models have been
submitted and the EPA has found the budgets to be adequate for
conformity purposes. Upon the effective date of this final rule, the
San Joaquin Valley metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the
U.S. Department of Transportation will be required to use the new
budgets in transportation conformity determinations.\18\ In addition,
for these conformity determinations, the motor vehicle emissions from
implementation of the transportation plan must be projected and
compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy and using the
same method as the budgets in the Plan. For example, emissions must be
rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton per day (tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Upon the effective date of this final rule, the newly-
approved budgets will supersede the corresponding budgets for the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that the EPA approved at 76 FR 69896
(November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) We are also approving the trading mechanism in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
use in transportation conformity analyses by the San Joaquin Valley
MPOs as allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124(b). The trading applies only to
the following:
     Emissions sources included in the transportation
conformity process;
     Trades using NOX emissions reductions in excess
of those needed to meet the NOX budget;
     Trades in one direction from NOX to direct
PM2.5; and
     A trading ratio of 2 tpd NOX to 1 tpd
PM2.5.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, D-125 to D-
127. Upon the effective date of this final rule, the new trading
ratio will replace the corresponding existing trading ratio of 9 to
1, NOX to PM2.5, for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade must be
included in the conformity analysis; and
    (5) We are disapproving the contingency measures element of the SJV
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
both the Serious area and CAA section 189(d) planning requirements for
failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). However,
based on our finding of attainment by the applicable attainment date,
we are also finalizing a determination that the contingency measures
requirement no longer applies to the San Joaquin Valley area for the
1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, this final action does
not trigger sanctions or FIP clocks.\20\ In addition, because we are
approving the RFP analysis, the modeled attainment demonstration, and
the motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are issuing a protective
finding for transportation conformity determinations under 40 CFR
93.120(a)(3) in connection with the final disapproval of the
contingency measures element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted in the proposed rule (86 FR 53150, 53152), on
December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62720), the EPA determined that California
had failed to submit a complete section 189(d) attainment plan for
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required SIP
submissions for the San Joaquin Valley, by the statutory deadlines.
Among other things, this finding triggered the obligation under CAA
section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) no later than two years after the finding, unless the
State has submitted, and the EPA has approved, the required SIP
submission. Our final action on the SJV PM2.5 Plan for
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS terminates our FIP
obligation arising from the December 6, 2018 determination with
respect to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in San Joaquin
Valley. For all SIP elements other than the contingency measures,
the FIP obligation is terminated by our approval of the relevant
portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan SIP as meeting the
applicable requirements. For the contingency measures element, the
FIP obligation is terminated based on our final determination that
the area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, and that as a result, the contingency
measures requirement for that NAAQS no longer applies, and thus,
there is no SIP deficiency for a FIP to correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, based on our final determination that the San Joaquin
Valley has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2020 attainment date, we are finalizing the determinations
that the requirements for a post-attainment milestone, a post-
attainment year quantitative milestone report, and post-attainment year
budgets no longer apply in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area
for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP
revisions and finding of attainment do not in-and-of themselves create
any new information collection burdens but simply disapprove certain
state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. 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. This partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP
revisions and finding of attainment do not in-and-of themselves create
any new requirements but simply disapprove certain state requirements
for inclusion in the SIP.

D. 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, in part, disapproves certain pre-
existing requirements under state or local law and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is
partially approving and partially disapproving do not 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.

G. 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 this partial approval and partial
disapproval of SIP revisions and finding of attainment do not in-and-of
themselves create any new regulations but simply disapprove certain
state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 29, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

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: January 24, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(537)(ii)(A)(8)
and (c)(537)(ii)(B)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (537) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (8) ``Appendix H, RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency,
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,
Appendix H Revised February 11, 2020'' (portions pertaining to the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only, and excluding section H.3
(``Contingency Measures'')).
    (B) * * *
    (6) 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards (``2018 PM2.5 Plan''), adopted November 15, 2018
(portions pertaining to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only,
and excluding Chapter 6 (``Demonstration of Federal Requirements for
2006 PM2.5 Standards''), Chapter 7 (``Demonstration of
Federal Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 Standards''), and
Appendix H, section H.3 (``Contingency Measures'')).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.237  Part D disapproval.

    (a) * * *
    (12) The contingency measures portion of the 2018 Plan for the
1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (``2018
PM2.5 Plan''), adopted November 15,

2018, for San Joaquin Valley with respect to the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.244  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) San Joaquin Valley, for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
only (years 2017 and 2020 budgets only), approved February 28, 2022.

0
5. Section 52.247 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.247  Control Strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.

* * * * *
    (p) Determination of Attainment: Effective February 28, 2022, the
EPA has determined that, based on 2018 to 2020 ambient air quality
data, the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 2020. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) to
determine whether the area attained the standard. The EPA has also
determined that, based on the determination of attainment by the
applicable attainment date, the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9) to
provide for contingency measures no longer applies to the San Joaquin
Valley area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2022-01728 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P