Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California, 31206-31212 [2016-11630]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31206
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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
IV. Summary of Proposed Action
safety risks subject to Executive Order
The EPA is proposing to find that the
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
State has met the criteria for receiving
• is not a significant regulatory action
a 1-year extension to the Moderate area
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5
28355, May 22, 2001);
NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as
• is not subject to requirements of
provided in section 188(d) of the Act.
Section 12(d) of the National
The State is implementing the
Technology Transfer and Advancement
requirements and commitments in the
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5 application of those requirements would
NAAQS in the area, and the 98th
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air quality
and
value for 2015 is below 35 mg/m3.
• does not provide the EPA with the
Accordingly, the State has established
discretionary authority to address, as
that it meets the criteria of section
appropriate, disproportionate human
188(d) as the EPA is proposing to
health or environmental effects, using
interpret those requirements for
practicable and legally permissible
purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The methods, under Executive Order 12898
EPA is therefore proposing to exercise
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
the discretion granted to the
any Indian reservation land or in any
Administrator by section 188(d) of the
other area where the EPA or an Indian
CAA to extend the Moderate area
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
attainment date for the Oakridge NAA
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
from December 31, 2015 to December
country, the rule does not have tribal
31, 2016.
implications and will not impose
V. Statutory and Executive Order
substantial direct costs on tribal
Reviews
governments or preempt tribal law as
Under the Clean Air Act, the
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Administrator is required to approve a
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
SIP submission that complies with the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
provisions of the Act and applicable
Environmental protection, Air
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
approve state choices, provided that
Reporting and recordkeeping
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
organic compounds.
merely approves state law as meeting
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 1year attainment date extension for the
Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section
188(d)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 1Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard in the San Joaquin
Valley Nonattainment Area in
California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine
that the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area has attained the 1hour 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 https://
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
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
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
1 See
sections 108 and 109 of the Act.
44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979.
3 See 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).
2 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 8hour 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
4 For more information, please see ‘‘National 1hour 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).
5 See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR
56694, November 6, 1991.
6 See 40 CFR 81.305.
7 See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.
8 See 66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001.
9 See 69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004.
10 See 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31207
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 1hour 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.,
11 See,
generally, 40 CFR 51.905.
FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
13 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). See, generally, 40
CFR 51.1105.
14 See 40 CFR 50.1118 and 80 FR 12264, March
6, 2015.
12 73
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
31208
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 1hour 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
15 See 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.
16 See 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011.
17 See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated February 11,
2016.
18 See ‘‘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’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
19 40
CFR 51.1105(b).
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.
20 Generally,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
21 See 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).
23 Relevant 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.
24 See 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.
25 See, 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.
26 See, 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.
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
31209
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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 1hour 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
Expected exceedances by year
Expected
exceedances
3-yr average
Site (AQS ID)
2012
2013
2014
2012–2014
FRESNO COUNTY:
Clovis—Villa (06–019–5001) ....................................................................
Fresno—Drummond Street (06–019–0007) .............................................
Fresno—Garland (06–019–0011) .............................................................
Fresno—Sierra Skypark (06–019–0242) ..................................................
Parlier (06–019–4001) ..............................................................................
Tranquility (06–019–2009) ........................................................................
KERN COUNTY:
Arvin—Di Giorgio (06–029–5002) ............................................................
Bakersfield—Muni (06–029–2012) ...........................................................
Bakersfield—California (06–029–0014) ....................................................
Edison (06–029–0007) .............................................................................
Maricopa (06–029–0008) .........................................................................
Oildale (06–029–0232) .............................................................................
Shafter (06–029–6001) .............................................................................
KINGS COUNTY:
Hanford—Irwin (06–031–1004) ................................................................
MADERA COUNTY:
Madera—Pump Yard (06–039–0004) ......................................................
Madera—City (06–039–2010) ..................................................................
MERCED COUNTY:
Merced—Coffee (06–047–0003) ..............................................................
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:
Stockton—Hazelton (06–077–1002) ........................................................
Tracy—Airport (06–077–3005) .................................................................
STANISLAUS COUNTY:
Modesto—14th Street (06–099–0005) .....................................................
Turlock (06–099–0006) ............................................................................
TULARE COUNTY:
Porterville (06–107–2010) ........................................................................
Sequoia National Park—Ash Mountain (06–107–0009) ..........................
Visalia—Church Street (06–107–2002) ....................................................
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Source: Quicklook Report, ‘‘20160311_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.pdf,’’ March 11, 2016; and ‘‘20160411_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_20122015.xlsx,’’ April 11, 2016 (in the docket for this proposed 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.
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
27 See, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
31210
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
28 See CARB’s missing data analysis in appendix
A to ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data
Determination’’ dated February 8, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
29 See
pp. 21–22, CARB ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 1Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination’’ dated
February 8, 2016.
30 See Table 9, p.22, CARB ‘‘San Joaquin Valley
1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination’’ dated
February 8, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
31 See pp. 18–19 and Appendix B, CARB ‘‘San
Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data
Determination’’ dated February 8, 2016.
32 See ‘‘Attainment Determination Request for the
Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard’’ dated July 13,
2015 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District.
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
33 See SJVAPCD’s ‘‘2015 Air Monitoring Network
Plan’’, dated August 28, 2015.
34 See, 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.
35 See letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Planning and Science Division, California
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
Air Resources Board, to Meredith Kurpius,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region
IX, dated April 29, 2016.
36 See 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.
37 See 40 CFR 51.1118.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31211
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
38 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
31212
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
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 https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 May 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
https://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?
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 24Hour 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 8hour ozone standard and the 2006 24hour 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 8hour 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
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).
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31206-31212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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
[[Page 31207]]
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-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), one-hour average (``1-hour ozone
standard'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See sections 108 and 109 of the Act.
\2\ See 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 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).
\4\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 40 CFR 81.305.
\7\ See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.
\8\ See 66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001.
\9\ See 69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.
\11\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 40 CFR 50.1118 and 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.,
[[Page 31208]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 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.
\16\ See 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
February 11, 2016.
\18\ See ``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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
anti-backsliding 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\21\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 76 FR 56694, at 56698 (September 14, 2011).
\23\ Relevant 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 quality-assured, 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
[[Page 31209]]
operate a monitoring site at the Picayune Rancheria in Madera County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 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.
\25\ See, 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.
\26\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quality-assured.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected exceedances by year Expected
------------------------------------------------ exceedances 3-
Site (AQS ID) 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- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0009)......................................
Visalia--Church Street (06-107-2002)........ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: 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).
\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.
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
[[Page 31210]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See CARB's missing data analysis in appendix A to ``San
Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination'' dated
February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See pp. 21-22, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean
Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
\30\ See Table 9, p.22, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone
Clean Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 three-year 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See pp. 18-19 and Appendix B, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-
Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See ``Attainment Determination Request for the Revoked 1-
Hour Ozone Standard'' dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31211]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See SJVAPCD's ``2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan'', dated
August 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 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.
\36\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 40 CFR 51.1118.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 31212]]
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
