46608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 16, 

2016. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 7, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. In § 52.970(c), the table titled ‘‘EPA 

Approved Louisiana Regulations in the 

Louisiana SIP’’ is amended by revising 

the entries for ‘‘Section 501’’ and 

‘‘Section 509’’ under Chapter 5—Permit 

Procedures to read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA REGULATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA SIP 

State citation Title/Subject State approval 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Chapter 5—Permit Procedures 

Section 501 ................ Scope and Applicability ................................. 4/20/2011 7/18/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Section 509 ................ Prevention of Significant Deterioration ......... 12/20/2012 7/18/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

SIP does not include the 

provisions for Step 2 

GHG permitting at 

‘‘major stationary 

source’’ paragraph (c) 

or ‘‘significant’’ as 

adopted on April 20, 

2011. 

SIP does not include the 

PM2.5 SMC at LAC 

33:III.509(I)(5)(a) from 

the 12/20/2012 adoption. LAC 

33:III.509(I)(5)(a) is SIPapproved as of 10/20/

2007 adoption. 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.986 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.986 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(c) The revisions to the Louisiana SIP 

adopted on April 20, 2011, and 

submitted on December 21, 2011, 

establishing PSD permitting 

requirements for sources that are 

classified as major and thus required to 

obtain a PSD permit based solely on 

their potential GHG emissions (‘‘Step 2’’ 

sources) at the definition of ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ paragraph (c) and the 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ at LAC 

33:III.509(B), are disapproved as 

inconsistent with federal law for the 

regulation and permitting of GHGs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16791 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0164; FRL–9949–07– 

Region 9] 

Determination of Attainment of the 1- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard in the San Joaquin 

Valley Nonattainment Area in 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 46609 

1See 81 FR 31206 (May 18, 2016). 

2See 40 CFR 81.305. 

3See 81 FR 31206 at 31207 (May 18, 2016). 

4 Id. at 31208–31210. 5 Id. at 31208. 6 Id. at 31209, Table 1, footnote 1 citing to 

Quicklook Reports providing ambient air quality 

data from 2012–2015 in the docket for this action. 7The Regional Administrator for the EPA Region 

9 office signed the proposed rule on May 3, 2016, 

and it was published in the Federal Register on 

May 18, 2016. The California Air Resources Board, 

the District, and the National Park Service all 

submitted their 2015 data certifications by May 10, 

2016. See (1) letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, 

Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment 

Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, 

CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, Air 

Division, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 

2015 ambient air quality data and quality assurance 

data, dated May 10, 2016; (2) letter from Jon 

Klassen, Program Manager, SJVAPCD, to Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2015 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, dated May 9, 2016; 

and (3) letter from Barkley Sive, Program Manager, 

NPS, to Lew Weinstock, EPA, certifying 2015 ozone 

data, dated April 27, 2016. 

8As discussed in our proposed rule, a ‘‘complete’’ 

data set for determining attainment of the ozone 

standard is generally one that includes three years 

of data with an average percent of days with valid 

monitoring data greater than 90 percent with no 

single year less than 75 percent. The 2013–2015 

data summarized in Table 1 from all of the 

regulatory sites meet this criterion. See June 20, 

2016 spreadsheet titled ‘‘20160620_QLRpt_SJV_

1hrO3_2012–2015.xlsx,’’ in the docket for this final 

action. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is determining that the 

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

has attained the 1-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. This 

determination is based on sufficient, 

quality-assured, and certified data for 

the 2012–2014 period. Ozone data 

collected in 2015 show continued 

attainment of the standard in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2016–0164. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region IX office, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, (415) 972–3958, or by email 

at lee.anita@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments 

III. The EPA’s Responses to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On May 18, 2016, the EPA proposed 

to determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

(‘‘Valley’’) 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area had attained the 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) based on 

sufficient, quality-assured, and certified 

data from the most recent three-year 

period (2012–2014).1 We noted that 

preliminary data for 2015 were 

consistent with continued attainment in 

the San Joaquin Valley. The Valley 

covers approximately 23,000 square 

miles and includes all of Fresno, Kings, 

Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, as well 

as the western half of Kern County.2

In our proposed rule, we provided 

background information on the 1-hour 

ozone standard, the designations and 

classifications of the San Joaquin Valley 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

for the 1-hour ozone standard, and the 

EPA’s prior actions related to the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the Valley.3 We also 

described how we determine whether 

an area’s air quality meets the 1-hour 

ozone standard, and identified the 

relevant air monitoring agencies in the 

San Joaquin Valley and their respective 

ozone monitoring networks, network 

plans, and annual certifications of 

ambient air monitoring data.4 In our 

proposed rule, we also discussed the 

requests, and associated analyses, 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) and the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (‘‘District’’), that the EPA find 

that the Valley has attained the 1-hour 

ozone standard.5

As discussed in our proposed rule, an 

area attains the 1-hour ozone standard if 

the highest three-year average of 

expected exceedances is less than or 

equal to 1 expected exceedance. Table 1 

in our proposed rule summarized the 

expected 1-hour ozone exceedances, per 

year and as an average over the 2012– 

2014 period, at the regulatory 

monitoring sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley. During the 2012–2014 period, 

the highest three-year average of 

expected exceedances at any site in the 

Valley was 0.7 expected exceedances at 

Fresno—Sierra Skypark in Fresno 

County. At the time of our proposed 

determination, preliminary data for 

2015 was available but not yet certified. 

We provided preliminary data for 2015 

that showed continued attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard.6 All three 

agencies operating regulatory 

monitoring sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley submitted their 2015 data 

certifications to the EPA by May 10, 

2016, shortly following the release of 

our proposed rule.7

For this final action, we have repeated 

our review of the 2015 data now that the 

data have been certified to confirm that 

the data are consistent with continued 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in the San Joaquin Valley. In Table 1 

below, we supplement the 

corresponding table from our proposed 

rule with 2015 data. As shown in Table 

1 below, the highest three-year average 

of expected exceedances at any site in 

the Valley for 2013–2015 was 0.4, at 

Fresno—Sierra Skypark in Fresno 

County. Based on complete, qualityassured, and certified data, the expected 

exceedances in Table 1 indicate 

continued attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV over 2013– 

2015.8

TABLE 1—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA1

Site (AQS ID) 

Expected exceedances 

by year 

Expected exceedances 

3-yr average 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2012–2014 2013–2015 

FRESNO COUNTY: 

Clovis—Villa (06–019–5001) ................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

9See 81 FR 31206, at 31208–31211 (May 18, 

2016). 

TABLE 1—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA1— 

Continued 

Site (AQS ID) 

Expected exceedances 

by year 

Expected exceedances 

3-yr average 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2012–2014 2013–2015 

Fresno—Drummond Street (06–019– 

0007) .................................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 

Fresno—Garland (06–019–0011) ............ 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Fresno—Sierra Skypark (06–019–0242) 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 

Parlier (06–019–4001) ............................. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Tranquility (06–019–2009) ....................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

KERN COUNTY: 

Arvin—Di Giorgio (06–029–5002) ............ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Bakersfield—Muni (06–029–2012) .......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 

Bakersfield—California (06–029–0014) ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Edison (06–029–0007) ............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Maricopa (06–029–0008) ......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Oildale (06–029–0232) ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Shafter (06–029–6001) ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

KINGS COUNTY: 

Hanford—Irwin (06–031–1004) ................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MADERA COUNTY: 

Madera—Pump Yard (06–039–0004) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Madera—City (06–039–2010) .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MERCED COUNTY: 

Merced—Coffee (06–047–0003) ............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 

Stockton—Hazelton (06–077–1002) ........ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tracy—Airport (06–077–3005) ................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

STANISLAUS COUNTY: 

Modesto—14th Street (06–099–0005) .... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Turlock (06–099–0006) ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TULARE COUNTY: 

Porterville (06–107–2010) ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sequoia National Park—Ash Mountain 

(06–107–0009) ..................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Visalia—Church Street (06–107–2002) ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1 Source: Quicklook Report, ‘‘20160620_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012–2015.pdf,’’ June 20, 2016; and ‘‘20160620_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012– 

2015.xlsx,’’ June 20, 2016 (in the docket for this final action). 2 Based on CARB’s missing data analysis for this site, at most one exceedance could have been recorded during the first half of 2012 if the 

site had been operational during that period. Assuming such an exceedance had occurred, the 3-year average of expected exceedances for the 

2012–2014 period at the Bakersfield-Municipal Airport site would have been 0.3, which is less than the corresponding value at Fresno—Sierra 

Skypark (0.7) and less than the NAAQS. 

We proposed to determine that the 

San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard based on our 

analysis of the ambient air quality data, 

as well as our review of 1-hour ozone 

trends in the Valley, data completeness, 

and the adequacy of the ozone 

monitoring network.9 We noted that if 

we finalize the proposed determination, 

to the extent not already fulfilled, the 

requirements for the state to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, reasonable further progress 

plans, contingency measures for failure 

to attain or make reasonable progress 

and other plans related to attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard for San 

Joaquin Valley shall be suspended until 

such time as the area is redesignated as 

attainment for the current ozone 

NAAQS or a redesignation substitute for 

the 1-hour ozone standard is approved, 

at which time the requirements no 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 46611 

10See 40 CFR 51.1118. 

11 Id. 

12 40 CFR 51.1105(b). 

longer apply.10 If, however, prior to 

such redesignation or approval of such 

redesignation substitute, the EPA 

determines that San Joaquin Valley has 

violated the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, then 

the area is again required to submit such 

attainment-related plans.11

II. Public Comments 

We solicited comment on the 

proposed determination of attainment 

and opened a 30-day public comment 

period. The comment period closed on 

June 17, 2016. During the comment 

period, we received a comment from a 

member of the public in support of the 

proposal, and a comment letter from the 

Western States Petroleum Association 

(WSPA). WSPA also expressed support 

for the proposed attainment 

determination but recommended 

concurrent revocation of the District’s 

penalty fee rule based on the District’s 

demonstration that the attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions and based on the sunset 

clause in the penalty fee rule itself. We 

respond to WSPA’s comment in the 

following section of this document. 

III. The EPA’s Responses to Public 

Comments 

In our proposed rule, we noted that in 

addition to the request for a clean data 

determination, the District provided 

documentation in its staff report 

intending to support a finding that 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. As discussed in 

our proposed rule, the EPA’s final 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

standard established a mechanism, 

referred to as a ‘‘redesignation 

substitute,’’ through which an area may 

shift to contingency status those 

requirements, such as penalty fee 

program requirements under CAA 

section 185, to which an area had 

remained subject under the EPA’s antibacksliding regulations governing the 

transition from revoked ozone standards 

(such as the 1-hour ozone standard) to 

current ozone standards. 

To invoke the redesignation 

substitute, a state must submit two 

things: (1) A demonstration that the area 

has attained the revoked ozone NAAQS 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions, and (2) a 

demonstration that the area will 

maintain the revoked NAAQS for 10 

years from the date of the EPA’s 

approval of this showing.12 The District 

submitted the first required 

demonstration to the EPA but did not 

submit the second required component 

of the redesignation substitute 

mechanism, i.e., the demonstration that 

the area will maintain the 1-hour ozone 

standard for 10 years. Because neither 

the state nor the District has submitted 

a complete demonstration required to 

invoke the redesignation substitute 

mechanism, we stated in our proposed 

rule that action on a single element (i.e., 

the demonstration of attainment due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions) was not appropriate without 

the second required element (i.e., the 

10-year maintenance demonstration). 

When the state submits a demonstration 

that the San Joaquin Valley will 

maintain the 1-hour ozone standard for 

10 years, we will review and consider 

whether both demonstrations together 

meet the requirements of the 

redesignation substitute mechanism for 

the 1-hour ozone standard. 

Moreover, we note that the District’s 

penalty fee rule does not automatically 

sunset upon the EPA’s final 

determination of attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone standard. The penalty fee 

rule (i.e., District Rule 3170 (‘‘Federally 

Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee’’) 

provides, in relevant part: 

‘‘The fees established by this rule shall 

cease to be applicable when the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) has met the 

revoked federal one-hour ambient air quality 

standard for ozone. 

For the purposes of this rule, the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin shall have met the 

revoked federal one-hour ambient air quality 

standard for ozone upon EPA’s 

determination, through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, of concurrence with a 

demonstration by the APCO and the 

California Air Resources Board that the 

average number of days per calendar year 

with maximum hourly average concentration 

above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to one 

(1), for each monitor. To make this 

demonstration, the APCO will, using all 

available quality assured monitoring data, 

calculate at each monitor the average number 

of days over the standard per year during a 

three-year period according to the procedures 

found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix H, and 

show that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions.’’ 

Thus, under the terms of the penalty 

fee rule, the fee provisions do not sunset 

simply upon the EPA’s determination of 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. The EPA’s concurrence on the 

demonstration that attainment of the 

standard is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions is also 

a prerequisite to triggering the sunset 

clause. While the District has submitted 

such a demonstration, we indicated in 

our proposed rule and reiterate above 

that we are taking no action on the 

District’s demonstration at this time. We 

will consider the District’s 

demonstration in a separate rulemaking 

if and when it is supplemented with the 

10-year maintenance demonstration 

element also needed to invoke the 

redesignation substitute mechanism in 

40 CFR 51.1105(b). 

IV. Final Action 

Based on the analyses in our proposed 

rule of ambient air quality data, 1-hour 

ozone trends in the Valley, and the 

adequacy of the monitoring network in 

the Valley, as well as our review of 2015 

data in this final rule indicating 

continued attainment of the standard, 

we are taking final action to determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard. This 

determination is based on sufficient, 

quality-assured, and certified data for 

the period 2012–2014. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action finalizes a determination 

based on air quality data and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this final action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46612 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this final clean data 

determination does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000) because the SIP obligations 

discussed herein do not apply to Indian 

Tribes, and thus will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 16, 

2016. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 30, 2016. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.282 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone 

* * * * * 

(h) Determination of attainment. EPA 

has determined that, as of August 17, 

2016, the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard, based upon 

sufficient, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

2012–2014. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16792 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0051; FRL—9949– 

18–Region 10] 

Extension of the Attainment Date for 

the Oakridge, Oregon 24-hour PM2.5

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing its decision 

to grant a 1-year extension of the 

attainment date for the Oakridge, 

Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 

December 31, 2015 to December 31, 

2016, on the basis that the State has met 

the criteria for such an extension under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0051. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information the disclosure 

of which 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 either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and 

Waste, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information please contact Justin 

Spenillo at (206) 553–6125, 

spenillo.justin@epa.gov or by using the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On May 18, 2016, the EPA proposed 

to grant a 1-year extension of the 

attainment date for the Oakridge, 

Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 

December 31, 2015 to December 31, 

2016, on the basis that the State has met 

the criteria for such an extension under 

the CAA (81 FR 31202). An explanation 

of the CAA requirements, a detailed 

analysis of the submittal, and the EPA’s 

reasons for proposing approval were 

provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and will not be restated 

here. The public comment period for 

this proposed rule ended on June 17, 

2016. The EPA received no comments 

on the proposal. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA finds that the State has met 

the criteria for receiving a 1-year 

extension to the Moderate area 

attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as 

provided in section 188(d) of the Act. 

The State is implementing the 

requirements and commitments in the 

applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5

NAAQS in the area, and the 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air quality 

value for 2015 is below 35 mg/m3. 

Accordingly, the State has established 

that it meets the criteria of section 

188(d) as the EPA interprets those 

requirements for purposes of the 2006 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES