31206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

in effect and are being implemented by 

the LRAPA at this time as part of the 

attainment date extension request. The 

EPA has reviewed the control measures 

of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan 

and the documentation of 

implementation submitted as part of the 

extension request. The docket provides 

documentation of this including the 

official extension request that describes 

supplemental strategies currently 

underway, an expanded city ordinance 

that enhances controls designed to 

reduce emissions from residential home 

heating, and local strategies and efforts 

to reduce emissions. Based upon this 

information, the EPA believes that the 

State and the LRAPA are complying 

with the requirements and 

commitments of the applicable 

implementation plan, as contemplated 

by section 188(d)(1). 

For these reasons, the EPA is 

proposing to find that the State meets 

the compliance with the applicable 

implementation plan criterion for a 1- 

year attainment date extension for the 

Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 

188(d)(1). 

IV. Summary of Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to find 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 is proposing to 

interpret those requirements for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is therefore proposing to exercise 

the discretion granted to the 

Administrator by section 188(d) of the 

CAA to extend the Moderate area 

attainment date for the Oakridge NAA 

from December 31, 2015 to December 

31, 2016. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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). 

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. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 9, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11628 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0164; FRL–9946– 

358–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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. This proposed 

determination is based on the most 

recent three-year period (2012–2014) of 

sufficient, quality-assured, and certified 

data. Preliminary data for 2015 are 

consistent with continued attainment of 

the standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0164 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

lee.anita@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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 EPA’s full public comment 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31207 

1See sections 108 and 109 of the Act. 

2See 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979. 

3See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. Because, in this 

context, the term ‘‘exceedances’’ refers to days 

(during which the daily maximum hourly ozone 

concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum 

possible number of exceedances in a given year is 

365 (or 366 in a leap year). 

4For more information, please see ‘‘National 1- 

hour primary and secondary ambient air quality 

standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 50.9) and 

‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and 

Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, appendix H). 

5See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 

56694, November 6, 1991. 

6See 40 CFR 81.305. 

7See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. 

8See 66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001. 

9See 69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004. 

10See 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997. 

11See, generally, 40 CFR 51.905. 

12 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

13 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). See, generally, 40 

CFR 51.1105. 

14See 40 CFR 50.1118 and 80 FR 12264, March 

6, 2015. 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

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. The EPA’s Analysis 

A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data 

B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in the 

San Joaquin Valley 

C. Analysis of Monitoring Network 

Adequacy 

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

requires the EPA to establish National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for certain 

widespread pollutants, such as ozone, 

that cause or contribute to air pollution 

that is reasonably anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare.1 In 

1979, we promulgated an ozone NAAQS 

of 0.12 parts per million (ppm), onehour average (‘‘1-hour ozone 

standard’’).2

An area is considered to have attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard if there are 

no violations of the standard, as 

determined in accordance with the 

regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, 

based on three consecutive calendar 

years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data. A violation 

occurs when the ambient ozone air 

quality monitoring data show greater 

than one (1.0) ‘‘expected number’’ of 

exceedances per year at any site in the 

area, when averaged over three 

consecutive calendar years. An 

‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances is a 

statistical term that refers to an 

arithmetic average. An ‘‘expected 

number’’ of exceedances may be 

equivalent to the number of observed 

exceedances plus an increment that 

accounts for incomplete sampling.3 An 

exceedance occurs when the maximum 

hourly ozone concentration during any 

day exceeds 0.124 ppm.4

The Act, as amended in 1990, 

required the EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any ozone areas that 

were still designated nonattainment 

under the 1977 Act Amendments, and 

any other areas violating the 1-hour 

ozone standard, generally based on air 

quality monitoring data from the 1987 

through 1989 period.5 The 1990 CAA 

Amendments further classified these 

areas, based on the severity of their 

nonattainment problem, as Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Marginal areas 

were subject to the fewest mandated 

control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 

1993, while Severe and Extreme areas 

were subject to more stringent planning 

requirements and were provided more 

time to attain the standard. 

The San Joaquin Valley (SJV or 

‘‘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.6 The 

Valley is home to approximately four 

million residents. On November 6, 1991, 

the EPA classified the San Joaquin 

Valley as ‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone standard with an 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 1999.7 The Valley was later 

reclassified by operation of law as 

‘‘Severe’’ based on our determination 

that the Valley had failed to attain the 

standard by the 1999 deadline.8 Later, 

the EPA approved a request by the State 

of California to reclassify the Valley as 

‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, with an applicable attainment 

date of November 15, 2010.9

In 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8- 

hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm (‘‘1997 

8-hour ozone standard’’), to replace the 

1-hour ozone standard.10 Although the 

1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 

2005, we continue to determine whether 

areas attain, or fail to attain, the 1-hour 

ozone standard. This is because, under 

the EPA’s regulations governing the 

transition from implementation of the 

revoked ozone standard to 

implementation of the replacement 

ozone standard, ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provisions require the continued 

applicability of certain 1-hour ozone 

control requirements in areas, such as 

the San Joaquin Valley, that are 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 

connection between some of those 

requirements and attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard.11 In 2008, we 

tightened the 8-hour ozone standard 

(‘‘2008 8-hour ozone standard’’),12 and 

in 2015, we revoked the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, but the principles of 

anti-backsliding continue to apply to 

both revoked ozone standards.13

In this action, we are proposing to 

determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. 

Under 40 CFR 50.1118, if this action is 

finalized as proposed and to the extent 

not already fulfilled, the requirement for 

this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated planning 

requirements related to attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard, including 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress plans, 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain, or make reasonable progress, 

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 longer 

apply.14 If, however, prior to such 

redesignation or approval of such 

redesignation substitute, the EPA 

determines that the area has violated the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS, then the area is 

again required to submit such 

attainment-related plans. 

Over the decades since the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, despite high rates of 

growth in population and regional 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 1-hour 

ozone concentrations in San Joaquin 

Valley have decreased, primarily due to 

emissions reductions from mobile 

source and consumer product control 

measures adopted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) and from 

stationary source control measures 

adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

‘‘District’’). For instance, despite 

regional growth, 1-hour ozone 

exceedance-days within the Valley (i.e., 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31208 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15See table A–1 in appendix A to the San Joaquin 

Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard, adopted by the District on September 19, 

2013. 

16See 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011. 

17See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated February 11, 

2016. 

18See ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean 

Data Determination’’ dated February 8, 2016, 

prepared by CARB; ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour 

Ozone Clean Data Determination—Appendices’’ 

dated February 8, 2016 prepared by CARB; letter 

from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Officer/Air 

Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, EPA Region IX, and Richard Corey, 

CARB, dated July 13, 2015; ‘‘Attainment 

Determination Request for the Revoked 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard’’ dated July 13, 2015 prepared by 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District; and ‘‘Sonoma Technology, Inc., ‘‘Ozone 

Concentrations In and Around the City of Arvin,’’ 

final report prepared for the District, May 2014 

(‘‘Arvin Ozone Saturation Study’’). 

19 40 CFR 51.1105(b). 

20 Generally, a ‘‘complete’’ data set for 

determining attainment of the ozone standard is 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. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. 

21See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H; 

40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, 

D and E. All data are reviewed to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix H. 

22 76 FR 56694, at 56698 (September 14, 2011). 

23Relevant changes in the ozone monitoring 

network include the relocation of the Fresno–North 

First Street site (AQS ID: 06–019–0008) 

approximately 0.25 miles north to the Fresno– 

Garland site (AQS ID: 06–019–0011), the relocation 

of the Arvin-Bear Mountain site (AQS ID: 06–029– 

5001) approximately 2 miles north to the Arvin-Di 

Giorgio site (AQS ID: 06–029–5002), and the 

establishment of new ozone monitors at Tranquility 

(AQS ID: 06–019–2009) in Fresno County, at 

Bakersfield Municipal Airport (AQS ID: 06–029– 

2012) in Kern County, in the City of Madera (AQS 

ID: 06–039–2010) in Madera County, and in 

Porterville (AQS ID: 06–107–2010) in Tulare 

County. 

24See figure 1 in SJVAPCD’s 2015 Air Monitoring 

Network Plan (August 28, 2015) for a map of the 

ambient air monitors in the San Joaquin Valley. 

25See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, 

Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment 

Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, 

CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2014 

ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, 

dated May 8, 2015. 

26See, e.g., letter from Sheraz Gill, Director of 

Strategies and Incentives, letter to Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2014 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, dated July 8, 2015. 

number of days in a year during which 

the 0.12 ppm standard was violated at 

a (i.e., at least one) monitoring site) 

decreased from 45 in 1990 to 7 in 

2010.15 Nonetheless, upon review of the 

ambient data for the three years 

preceding the November 15, 2010 

attainment date (i.e., 2008–2010), we 

determined that the San Joaquin Valley 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by that date.16

Since then, the trend towards fewer 1- 

hour ozone exceedance-days has 

continued, and on February 11, 2016, 

CARB requested that the EPA determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard (also referred 

to as a ‘‘clean data determination’’).17 As 

part of its request for a clean data 

determination for the 1-hour ozone 

standard for the San Joaquin Valley, 

CARB submitted its own staff report and 

appendices, a letter dated July 13, 2015 

from the District to the EPA and CARB 

requesting a clean data determination, 

the District’s staff report to support its 

clean data determination request, and 

an ozone study final report prepared for 

the District.18

In addition to the request for a clean 

data determination, the District 

provided documentation in its staff 

report intended to support a finding that 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. In our final 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

standard (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015), 

we 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 this 

mechanism, a state must submit a 

demonstration that the area has attained 

the revoked ozone NAAQS due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions and that the area will 

maintain the revoked NAAQS for 10 

years from the date of the EPA’s 

approval of this showing.19 In this 

action, we are not taking action on the 

District’s demonstration that attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San 

Joaquin Valley is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

because it is not relevant for the 

purposes of a clean data determination, 

but 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). 

II. The EPA’s Analysis 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS is generally based upon three 

years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified air quality monitoring data 

gathered at established State and Local 

Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the 

nonattainment area and entered into the 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database.20 A determination of whether 

an area meets the 1-hour ozone standard 

relies upon a review of the daily 

maximum ozone levels. Under 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix H, a daily maximum 

ozone level is defined to be the highest 

hourly ozone value recorded for the day. 

This daily maximum value is 

considered valid if 75 percent of the 

hours from 9:01 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. were 

measured or if the highest hour is 

greater than the level of the standard. A 

missing daily maximum ozone value 

may be assumed to be less than the level 

of the standard if the valid daily 

maxima on both the preceding day and 

the following day do not exceed 75 

percent of the NAAQS. Data from air 

monitors operated by state or local 

agencies in compliance with the EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to the AQS database. 

Monitoring agencies annually certify 

that these data are accurate to the best 

of their knowledge. Accordingly, the 

EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS 

database when determining the 

attainment status of an area.21

A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data 

When the EPA determined that the 

San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain 

the November 15, 2010 attainment date, 

the Agency made its determination 

based on 2008 to 2010 data from a 

network of 22 ozone monitoring sites.22

By 2015, the number of ozone 

monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley 

had increased to 27, 24 of which are 

designated as regulatory and from 

which data may be compared to the 

NAAQS.23 All of these sites monitor 

ozone concentrations on a continuous 

basis using ultraviolet absorption 

monitors. 

CARB or SJVAPCD operates 23 of the 

monitoring sites: Seven within Kern 

County, six within Fresno County, two 

within Madera, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

and Tulare counties, and one within 

Kings and Merced counties.24 CARB 

annually certifies that the data the 

agency submits to AQS are qualityassured, including data collected by 

CARB at monitoring sites in San Joaquin 

Valley.25 SJVAPCD does the same for 

monitors operated by the District.26 In 

addition, the National Park Service 

(NPS) operates two ozone monitoring 

sites in Sequoia National Park in Tulare 

County; the Tachi-Yokut Tribe operates 

a monitoring site at the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria in Kings County; and the 

Chukchansi Indians of California 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31209 

27See, e.g., letter from Barkley Sive, Program 

Manager, NPS, to Lew Weinstock, U.S. EPA, 

certifying 2014 ozone data, incorrectly dated April 29, 2014, received by EPA via electronic mail on 

April 30, 2015. 

operate a monitoring site at the 

Picayune Rancheria in Madera County. 

The Sequoia National Park—Ash 

Mountain (AQS ID 06–107–0009) NPS 

monitoring site is designated as 

regulatory and comparable to the 

NAAQS. NPS annually certifies that the 

data it submits to AQS are qualityassured.27 One NPS site within Tulare 

County, Sequoia National Park—Lower 

Kaweah (AQS ID 06–107–0006), is 

designated as non-regulatory and not 

comparable to the NAAQS. The EPA 

notes that the two monitoring sites 

located in Indian country, Santa Rosa 

Rancheria (AQS ID 06–031–0500) and 

Picayune Rancheria (AQS ID 06–019– 

0500), are designated as non-regulatory 

and not comparable to the NAAQS. 

Table 1 summarizes 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. Generally, the 

highest ozone concentrations in the San 

Joaquin Valley have occurred in the 

central and southern portions of the 

nonattainment area, but in recent years, 

the highest ozone concentrations have 

occurred in the central portion of the 

valley (i.e., within Fresno County). As 

shown in Table 1, the highest three-year 

average of expected exceedances at any 

site in the San Joaquin Valley for 2012– 

2014 is 0.7 at Fresno—Sierra Skypark in 

Fresno County. The calculated 

exceedance rate of 0.7 represents 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

(a three-year average of expected 

exceedances less than or equal to 1). 

Thus, taking into account the extent and 

reliability of the applicable ozone 

monitoring network, and the data 

collected and summarized in Table 1, 

we propose to determine that the San 

Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS (as defined in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix H). Preliminary 2015 

data have not been certified but are 

consistent with the continued 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the San Joaquin Valley. 

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

Site (AQS ID) 

Expected exceedances by year Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2012 2013 2014 

2012–2014 

FRESNO COUNTY: 

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

Fresno—Drummond Street (06–019–0007) ............................................. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

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

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

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

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

KERN COUNTY: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KINGS COUNTY: 

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

MADERA COUNTY: 

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

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

MERCED COUNTY: 

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

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 

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

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

STANISLAUS COUNTY: 

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

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

TULARE COUNTY: 

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

Sequoia National Park—Ash Mountain (06–107–0009) .......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

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

1Source: Quicklook Report, ‘‘20160311_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.pdf,’’ March 11, 2016; and ‘‘20160411_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012- 

2015.xlsx,’’ April 11, 2016 (in the docket for this proposed action). 2Based 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. 

As noted above, 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. Based 

on these criteria, the data summarized 

in Table 1 from all of the sites meet the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31210 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

28See CARB’s missing data analysis in appendix 

A to ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data 

Determination’’ dated February 8, 2016. 

29See pp. 21–22, CARB ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1- 

Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination’’ dated 

February 8, 2016. 30See Table 9, p.22, CARB ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 

1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination’’ dated 

February 8, 2016. 

31See pp. 18–19 and Appendix B, CARB ‘‘San 

Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data 

Determination’’ dated February 8, 2016. 

32See ‘‘Attainment Determination Request for the 

Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard’’ dated July 13, 

2015 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District. 

criteria over the 2012 to 2014 period 

except for the Bakersfield—Municipal 

Airport site (AQS ID: 06–029–2012). 

The Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site 

began operation on July 1, 2012 and 

although completeness was greater than 

90 percent for the period of the year it 

was operating, total completeness for 

the entire year, including the period 

prior to establishment of the monitor, 

was 48 percent. Completeness was 

greater than 90 percent at the 

Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site in 

2013 and 2014. 

To address the data gap at the 

Bakersfield—Municipal Airport, CARB 

prepared a missing data analysis to 

identify an upper bound on the ozone 

concentrations and exceedance days 

that might have been recorded at this 

site during the first half of 2012 if it had 

been operational during that time.28 To 

identify an upper bound, CARB 

calculated the maximum differences 

between daily maximum 1-hour ozone 

measurements occurring on the same 

days from the three surrounding sites 

(Oildale, Bakersfield—California 

Avenue, and Edison) and the 

Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site 

during the first six months of 2013 and 

2014 and applied the maximum 

differences to the highest daily 

maximum hourly concentrations 

measured at the three nearby ozone sites 

during the first half of 2012. The results 

showed that at most one exceedance 

could have been measured at the 

Bakersfield—Municipal Airport during 

the first six months of 2012 if it had 

been operational during that time. Based 

on our review, we find CARB’s methods 

for estimating an upper bound on ozone 

concentrations and exceedances at the 

Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site to 

be acceptable and agree with CARB’s 

conclusions drawn from the analysis. 

Thus, we find that incompleteness of 

the 2012 data set from the Bakersfield— 

Municipal Airport site does not 

preclude an attainment determination 

for the San Joaquin Valley that relies, in 

part, on 2012 data. 

B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in 

the San Joaquin Valley 

In support of its request to EPA for a 

Clean Data Determination, CARB 

submitted analyses of the 1-hour ozone 

design value and concentration trends, 

along with analyses of topography, 

meteorology, and ozone precursor 

emissions in the Valley. Based on its 

analyses, CARB concluded that the 

ozone site within the Valley with the 

maximum 1-hour ozone concentration is 

currently located in the Fresno 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 

Between 1990 and 2007, the maximum 

1-hour ozone concentrations in the 

Valley alternated between the 

Bakersfield MSA in the southern 

portion of the Valley and the Fresno 

MSA in the central portion of the 

Valley.29 In 2008 the location of the 

maximum 1-hour ozone concentration 

site shifted from the Bakersfield MSA 

(at the Edison monitoring site for 2006– 

2007) to the Fresno MSA (at the 

Clovis—N. Villa Avenue monitoring site 

in 2008–2010), where it has remained 

through 2015 (at the Fresno—Sierra 

Skypark monitoring site in 2012– 

2014).30 CARB provided detailed 

evidence that the maximum 1-hour 

ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield 

MSA have decreased and the location of 

the maximum 1-hour ozone 

concentration has occurred in the 

Fresno MSA over last seven years 

(2008–2014). 

CARB’s analyses suggest that the 

Valley’s topography, weather, and 

transport patterns strongly influence the 

geographic distribution of ozone, 

resulting in lower levels in the north, 

with higher levels in the central and 

southern portions of the Valley. In 

addition, CARB’s analysis of emission 

inventories show decreasing trends in 

anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen 

oxides and reactive organic gases 

throughout the Valley from 2000 to 

2014, with the fastest rates of decrease 

expected in the Bakersfield MSA, 

providing further support that the 

Valley’s design value is likely to 

continue to occur in the Fresno MSA. 

The Arvin—Bear Mountain 

monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA 

was closed in 2010. Prior to its ceasing 

operation, a monitor intended to replace 

it began operating nearby at the Arvin— 

Di Giorgio site. The request to replace 

the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring 

site with the Arvin—Di Giorgio 

monitoring site and the EPA’s analysis 

of the request are discussed in section 

II.C., below. At the time of its closure, 

the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring 

site had not recorded the maximum 

ozone concentration in the Valley in 

more than five years. However, in order 

to ensure that all sites that had been 

violating the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

would be attaining the standard, CARB 

conducted a detailed analysis of the 

daily maximum 1-hour ozone 

concentrations expected at the Arvin— 

Bear Mountain monitoring site 

following its closure in 2010 because it 

had been one of the Valley sites that, in 

some prior years, recorded the highest 

ozone concentration in the Valley. 

CARB conducted rank-by-rank 

regression analyses and comparisons 

using 2010 data from the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain, Arvin—Di Giorgio, and 

Edison monitoring sites to estimate 

daily maximum 1-hour ozone 

concentrations and estimated expected 

exceedances at the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site for 2011–2015 

had the monitor remained operational 

until this time. CARB’s analyses 

indicated that the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site would have 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the 2012–2014 period and would have 

continued to attain the standard for 

2013–2015 based on the most recent 

preliminary data for 2015.31 CARB’s 

analyses also concluded that the threeyear average of estimated expected 

exceedances of 0.3 at the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site for both the 

2012–2014 and 2013–2015 periods 

would have been less than the 

corresponding values at the Fresno— 

Sierra Skypark monitoring site (0.7 for 

2012–2014 and 0.4 for 2013–2015). 

In addition to CARB’s analyses, the 

District conducted predictive regression 

calculations of daily maximum 1-hour 

ozone concentrations for 2012 through 

2014 at the Arvin—Bear Mountain and 

Arvin—Di Giorgio monitoring sites.32

Although the District used different 

methods, their results are consistent 

with the results from CARB’s analyses, 

indicating that ozone concentrations at 

the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring 

site would have attained the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS during 2012–2014. The 

District’s analyses also indicate the 

location of the maximum 1-hour 

concentration ozone site within the 

Fresno MSA and provide support for the 

shift, in 2008, of the Valley’s maximum 

site from the Bakersfield region to the 

Fresno region. This is further supported 

by monitoring data at the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site that show that 

in the last five years of Arvin—Bear 

Mountain’s monitor operation prior to 

its 2010 closure, the Valley’s maximum 

1-hour ozone concentration did not 

occur at the Arvin—Bear Mountain 

monitoring site. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31211 

33See SJVAPCD’s ‘‘2015 Air Monitoring Network 

Plan’’, dated August 28, 2015. 

34See, e.g., letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, 

Air Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

dated October 22, 2012, transmitting the findings 

from the EPA’s 2011 Technical Systems Audit. 

35See letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 

Quality Planning and Science Division, California 

Air Resources Board, to Meredith Kurpius, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 

IX, dated April 29, 2016. 

36See letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen 

Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science 

Division, California Air Resources Board, dated 

May 2, 2016. 

37See 40 CFR 51.1118. 38 Id. 

Based on our review of the submitted 

documentation, we find that CARB’s 

and the District’s methods and analyses 

regarding 1-hour ozone trends in the 

San Joaquin Valley and estimates of 

post-2010 ozone concentrations and 

expected exceedances at the Arvin— 

Bear Mountain site to be reasonable and 

agree with the conclusions drawn 

therefrom. 

C. Analysis of Monitoring Network 

Adequacy 

Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB 

and the District are jointly responsible 

for assuring that the area meets air 

quality monitoring requirements. The 

SLAMS network of ozone monitors in 

the Valley includes monitors operated 

by the District and monitors operated by 

CARB. The District submits annual 

monitoring network plans to the EPA. 

The District’s network plans describe 

the various monitoring sites operated by 

the District as well as those operated by 

CARB. These plans discuss the status of 

the air monitoring network, as required 

under 40 CFR 58.10.33

The EPA reviews the District’s annual 

network plans and conducts technical 

systems audits and has generally found 

the combined ambient air monitoring 

network meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone 

and is in compliance with the 

applicable reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 58 for ozone except for the 

requirement to identify a maximum 

concentration ozone site within the 

Bakersfield MSA.34

Specifically, 40 CFR part 58 requires, 

among other things, that at least one 

ozone site for each MSA must be 

designated to record the maximum 

concentration for that particular area. 

The closure of the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain site without subsequent 

approval of a replacement site 

prevented the designation of a 

maximum concentration ozone site for 

the Bakersfield MSA. On April 29, 2016, 

CARB submitted a request letter to the 

EPA for the relocation of the San 

Joaquin Valley Arvin—Bear Mountain 

ozone air monitoring site to the Arvin— 

Di Giorgio air monitoring site, which is 

2.2 miles away and began operation 

prior to closure of the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain site.35 On May 2, 2016, EPA 

approved the relocation request based 

on a thorough review of all nearby 

available site options.36 Approval of the 

replacement site for the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site resolves the 

ozone ambient air monitoring network 

issue for the Bakersfield MSA. The EPA 

is determining that the ozone 

monitoring network in the Valley is 

adequate based on the following: The 

foregoing analyses provided by CARB 

and the District indicating that the 

Valley’s maximum 1-hour ozone 

concentration site has shifted away from 

the Bakersfield MSA to sites located in 

the Fresno MSA and that 1-hour ozone 

design values that would have occurred 

at the Arvin—Bear Mountain 

monitoring site post-2010 are consistent 

with attainment; the EPA’s approval of 

the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring 

site relocation request; and the fact that 

the replacement for the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site (i.e., Arvin— 

Di Giorgio) has been in operation since 

prior to the closure of the Arvin—Bear 

Mountain monitoring site. 

III. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard based on 

sufficient, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 2012–2014 monitoring period. 

Preliminary data for 2015 are consistent 

with the continued attainment of the 

standard in San Joaquin Valley. 

If we finalize this determination as 

proposed, 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 longer 

apply.37 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.38

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document or on other relevant 

matters. We will accept comments from 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination based on air quality data 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

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 

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 proposed clean data 

determination does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), and will not impose substantial 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In 2008, the EPA revised and further 

strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard by setting 

the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 

0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘2008 

8-hour ozone standard’’). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). In 2015, the EPA further tightened the 8-hour 

ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 

26, 2015). 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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: May 3, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11630 Filed 5–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0711; FRL–9946–60– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone 

and Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve revisions to 

the State of California’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The revisions 

consist of an update to the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) for the SJV ozone 

nonattainment area; for NOX and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard for the SJV 

PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for NOX

and course particulate matter (PM10) for 

the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the 

SJV PM10 maintenance area. The EPA is 

proposing to approve the SJV ozone and 

PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally 

approve the PM10 budgets in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0711 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karina O’Connor, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (775) 434–8176, 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

the EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section is arranged as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. Background 

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s Action 

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

C. What is the EMFAC model? 

D. What versions of EMFAC are currently 

in use in California? 

E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect? 

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets 

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based 

on EMFAC2014 

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

IV. What are the criteria for approval of 

revised budgets? 

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the 

EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24- 

Hour PM10 Standard 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing action on a SIP 

revision submitted by the State of 

California (‘‘State’’) on November 13, 

2015. The SIP submittal revises budgets 

applicable to control strategy or 

maintenance plans for the SJV for three 

different NAAQS. We are proposing to 

approve revised budgets for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. We are also 

proposing to conditionally approve 

revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 standard. Should the EPA later 

finalize the revised budgets as proposed 

herein, they will replace the SJV’s 

existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, and the 1987 24-hour PM10

standard. At that time, the previouslyapproved or adequate budgets would no 

longer be applicable for transportation 

conformity purposes, and the revised 

budgets would need to be used as of the 

effective date of the final approval. 

II. Background 

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s 

Action 

In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone 

standard to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts 

per million, averaged over an 8-hour 

period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).1 On 

April 15, 2004, the EPA designated the 

SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and classified the 

area as ‘‘Serious’’ under CAA section 

181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. 

See 69 FR 23858 at 23888–89 (April 30, 

2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, 

California requested that the EPA 

reclassify the SJV from ‘‘Serious’’ to 

‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard under CAA 

section 181(b)(3). We granted 

California’s request on May 5, 2010 and 

reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS