82 FR 33032 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 137 (July 19, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 137 (July 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 33032-33035 | |
| FR Document | 2017-15052 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 33032-33035] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-15052] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0196; FRL-9965-06-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from landfill gas flaring at the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California. We are proposing to approve portions of two SMAQMD operating permits that limit VOC emissions from this facility under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 18, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2017-0196 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited 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 [[Page 33033]] consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI, or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What documents did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these documents? C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents? B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What documents did the State submit? On January 24, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits to Operate for the Kiefer Landfill. Specifically, CARB submitted permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and Attachment A from SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361. SMAQMD adopted these portions of Permits 24360 and 24361 for inclusion in the California SIP on July 28, 2016. Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents. On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittals for SMAQMD met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these documents? There are no previous versions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 or 24361 regulating VOC emissions from the Kiefer Landfill in the SIP. However, the SMAQMD adopted and submitted Permit No. 17359 for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from the Kiefer Landfill gas flare on October 26, 2006, and we approved it into the SIP on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20242). C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents? VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Additionally, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires states to submit SIP provisions requiring the implementation of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for any major stationary source \1\ of VOC located in an area classified as moderate nonattainment or above. The Sacramento Metro Area is classified as a severe-15 nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),\2\ and the Kiefer Landfill, which is operated by the County of Sacramento's Department of Waste Management and Recycling, is a major stationary source of VOC. The SMAQMD is therefore required to implement RACT at the facility under section 182(b)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In severe ozone nonattainment areas, ``major stationary source'' includes any stationary source that emits or has a potential to emit at least 25 tons per year of VOCs. See CAA section 182(d). \2\ 40 CFR 81.305; 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010), 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 12, 2016, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the SMAQMD's SIP revision to address RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based in part on our conclusion that the submittal did not satisfy the CAA section 182 requirements for the Kiefer Landfill. See 81 FR 53280. Our final action stated that sanctions would be imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approved SIP revisions correcting these deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of our final rulemaking action. The SMAQMD adopted the submitted portions of Permits 24360 and 24361 to address the VOC RACT deficiencies identified by the EPA for the Kiefer Landfill. The submitted portions relate to the control of VOC emissions from gas flares at the Kiefer Landfill (Permit 24360 applies to flare No. 1; and Permit 24361 applies to flare No. 2). They contain emission limits, equipment operational requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, monitoring and testing requirements, and a stipulation that for federal enforcement purposes, the RACT provisions in the permits remain in effect as part of the SIP until replaced pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 and approved by the EPA. II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents? SIP provisions must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). Generally, the SIP must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs or NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The Kiefer Landfill is a major source of VOCs in an ozone nonattainment area, so the SIP must implement RACT for this facility. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following: 1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990 (``The Bluebook''). 3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (``The Little Bluebook''). 4. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2,'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT); Questions and Answers'' (May 18, 2006). B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria? We are proposing to approve the submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361 into the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP because they satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for approval. Specifically, for SMAQMD Permit 24360, we propose to approve permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof), and Attachment A, which together establish an enforceable VOC limitation satisfying [[Page 33034]] RACT for landfill gas flare No. 1 at the Kiefer Landfill. Similarly, for SMAQMD Permit 24361, we are proposing to approve into the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP, permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and Attachment A, which together establish an enforceable VOC limitation satisfying RACT for landfill gas flare No. 2 at the Kiefer Landfill. The VOC limitations contained in these permits are consistent with the limitations contained in other California air district rules for similar facilities. For example, permit condition 8 for landfill flares No. 1 and No. 2 specifies a VOC destruction efficiency of 98% or 20 parts per million by volume, dry, at 3% Oxygen, measured as hexane. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1150.1, ``Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (April 1, 2011), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 8-34, ``Solid Waste Disposal Sites'' (June 15, 2005), apply this same limit. Other California air district rules such as Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District Rule 2-38, ``Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (March 12, 1997) and San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 59.1, ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (June 17, 1998) reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, ``Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' for applicable requirements, which includes these same limits. The operational standards for the landfill flares are thus also consistent with the landfill flare standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and are also consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.'' Because the applicable SIP currently does not contain VOC limitations for the Kiefer Landfill gas flares, the approval of these permit conditions strengthens the SIP. In sum, the submitted permit conditions satisfy the applicable requirements and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations and may, therefore, be approved into the California SIP. As stated earlier, on August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53280), the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the SMAQMD's RACT SIP revisions submitted by California on July 11, 2007 and January 21, 2009, based in part on our conclusion that the state had not fully satisfied CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the pharmaceuticals manufacturing CTG category and for the Kiefer Landfill. We are separately but contemporaneously proposing approval of a SIP revision intended to address the deficiencies identified in our 2016 partial disapproval of the SMAQMD's RACT SIP regarding the pharmaceuticals manufacturing CTG category.\3\ Final approval of the submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361, and SMAQMD Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, would satisfy California's obligation to implement RACT under CAA section 182 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and thereby terminate both the offset sanctions clock and the Federal Implementation Plan clock associated with our August 12, 2016 final action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ We are submitting these two proposed actions together for publication, and expect the Federal Register notices to publish around the same time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents. C. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the specific permit conditions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361 as submitted by CARB on January 24, 2017, because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until August 18, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents, our final action will incorporate these documents into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SMAQMD permits described in Section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting [[Page 33035]] and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 29, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017-15052 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![33032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area,2 based in part on approve state choices, provided that Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
our conclusion that the state had not they meet the criteria of the Clean Air and recordkeeping requirements,
fully satisfied CAA section 182 RACT Act. Accordingly, this proposed action Volatile organic compounds.
requirements for the pharmaceuticals merely proposes to approve state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
manufacturing CTG category and for the meeting federal requirements and does
municipal waste landfill category. We Dated: June 29, 2017.
not impose additional requirements
are separately but contemporaneously beyond those imposed by state law. For Alexis Strauss,
proposing approval of submitted that reason, this proposed action: Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
portions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2017–15050 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
and 24361 for the Kiefer Landfill, which action’’ subject to review by the Office BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
are intended to address the deficiencies of Management and Budget under
identified in our 2016 partial Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
disapproval of the SMAQMD’s RACT October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SIP regarding the municipal waste January 21, 2011); AGENCY
landfill category.3 Final approval of • Does not impose an information
Rule 464 and the submitted portions of collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
the Kiefer Landfill permits would satisfy of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0196; FRL–9965–06–
California’s obligation to implement U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 9]
RACT under CAA section 182 for the • Is certified as not having a
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and thereby significant economic impact on a Approval of California Air Plan
terminate both the sanctions clocks and substantial number of small entities Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan
the Federal Implementation Plan clock under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Air Quality Management District
associated with our August 12, 2016 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
final action. • Does not contain any unfunded
Agency (EPA).
mandate or significantly or uniquely
C. Public Comment and Proposed ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described
Action
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully • Does not have Federalism revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan
approve the submitted rule and rule implications as specified in Executive Air Quality Management District
rescission because we believe they Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, (SMAQMD) portion of the California
fulfill all relevant requirements. We will 1999); State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
accept comments from the public on • Is not an economically significant revision concerns emissions of volatile
this proposal until August 18, 2017. If regulatory action based on health or organic compounds (VOC) from landfill
we take final action to approve the safety risks subject to Executive Order gas flaring at the Kiefer Landfill in
submitted rule and rule rescission, our 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Sacramento, California. We are
final action will incorporate these rules • Is not a significant regulatory action proposing to approve portions of two
into the federally enforceable SIP. subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR SMAQMD operating permits that limit
III. Incorporation by Reference 28355, May 22, 2001); VOC emissions from this facility under
• Is not subject to requirements of
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We
Section 12(d) of the National
include in a final EPA rule regulatory are taking comments on this proposal
Technology Transfer and Advancement
text that includes incorporation by and plan to follow with a final action.
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
reference. In accordance with DATES: Any comments must arrive by
application of those requirements would
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; August 18, 2017.
proposing to incorporate by reference and ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
the SMAQMD rules described in Table • Does not provide the EPA with the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, discretionary authority to address OAR–2017–0196 at https://
and will continue to make, these disproportionate human health or www.regulations.gov, or via email to
materials available through https:// environmental effects with practical, Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA appropriate, and legally permissible Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For
Region IX Office (please contact the methods under Executive Order 12898 comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
person identified in the FOR FURTHER (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). follow the online instructions for
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this In addition, the SIP is not approved submitting comments. Once submitted,
preamble for more information). to apply on any Indian reservation land comments cannot be removed or edited
IV. Statutory and Executive Order or in any other area where the EPA or from Regulations.gov. For either manner
Reviews an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a of submission, the EPA may publish any
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of comment received to its public docket.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Indian country, the rule does not have Do not submit electronically any
Administrator is required to approve a information you consider to be
tribal implications and will not impose
SIP submission that complies with the Confidential Business Information (CBI)
substantial direct costs on tribal
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
provisions of the Act and applicable or other information whose disclosure is
governments or preempt tribal law as
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); restricted by statute. Multimedia
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
submissions, the EPA’s role is to accompanied by a written comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 The written comment is considered the
2 See,81 FR 53280 (August 12, 2016).
3 We are submitting these two proposed actions
Environmental protection, Air official comment and should include
together for publication, and expect the Federal pollution control, Incorporation by discussion of all points you wish to
Register notices to publish around the same time. reference, Intergovernmental relations, make. The EPA will generally not
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_33169/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Proposed Rules 33035
and recordkeeping requirements, you must submit your comments by rule (81 FR 63454), there has been
Volatile organic compounds. 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing substantial disagreement among peer
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. date. reviewers regarding the potential impact
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments of the invasion of Argentine ants
Dated: June 29, 2017. (Linepithema humile) on the pollination
by one of the following methods:
Alexis Strauss, ecology of C. parryi var. fernandina, and
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. http://www.regulations.gov. In the there is scientific uncertainty related to
[FR Doc. 2017–15052 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am] Search box, enter the docket number for establishment of C. parryi var.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P this proposed rule, which is FWS–R8– fernandina using introduction of seed
ES–2016–0078. Then click on the into suitable, unoccupied areas.
Search button. You may submit a We find that there is substantial
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment scientific uncertainty and disagreement
Now!’’ Please ensure that you have about certain data relevant to our listing
Fish and Wildlife Service found the correct rulemaking before determination. Therefore, in
submitting your comment. consideration of these disagreements,
50 CFR Part 17 (2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public we have determined that a 6-month
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. extension of the final determination for
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2016–0078;
4500030113] FWS–R8–ES–2016–0078; U.S. Fish and this rulemaking is necessary, and we are
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 hereby extending the final
RIN 1018–BB64 determination for 6 months in order to
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803. solicit and consider additional
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information that will help to clarify
and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, these issues and to fully analyze data
Determination on the Proposed that are relevant to our final listing
Threatened Status for Chorizanthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola determination. With this 6-month
parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando extension, we will make a final
Valley Spineflower) Road, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone
805–644–5763; facsimile 805–644–3958. determination on the proposed rule no
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Persons who use a telecommunications later than March 15, 2018.
Interior. device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Information Requested
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. We will accept written comments and
comment period. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information during this reopened
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Background comment period on our proposed listing
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
On September 15, 2016, we published that was published in the Federal
6-month extension of the final a proposed rule (81 FR 63454) to list
determination of whether to list the Register on September 15, 2016 (81 FR
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina as a 63454). We will consider information
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San threatened species under the
Fernando Valley spineflower), a plant and recommendations from all
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as interested parties. We intend that any
species from southern California, as a amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
threatened species. Along with this final action resulting from the proposal
That proposal had a 60-day comment be as accurate as possible and based on
announcement to extend the final period, ending November 14, 2016. For
determination, we are also reopening the best available scientific and
a description of previous Federal commercial data.
the comment period on the proposed actions concerning C. parryi var. In consideration of the scientific
rule to list the species, for an additional fernandina, please refer to the disagreements about certain data, we are
30 days. We are taking this action to September 15, 2016, proposed listing particularly interested in new
extend the final determination based on rule (81 FR 63454). We also solicited information and comments regarding:
substantial disagreement regarding the and received independent scientific (1) How Argentine ant invasion may
potential impact of Argentine ant review of the information contained in affect the pollination ecology of C.
invasion on the pollination ecology of C. the proposed rule from peer reviewers parryi var. fernandina; and
parryi var. fernandina and scientific with expertise in C. parryi var. (2) The efficacy of seed introduction
uncertainty related to establishment of fernandina or similar species ecology for long-term establishment into
C. parryi var. fernandina using and identified threats to the species, in suitable, unoccupied habitat of
introduction of seed into suitable, accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer Chorizanthe or related taxa.
unoccupied areas. Comments previously review policy (59 FR 34270). If you previously submitted
submitted need not be resubmitted as Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its comments or information on the
they are already incorporated into the implementing regulations at 50 CFR September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81
public record and will be fully 424.17(a) require that we take one of FR 63454), please do not resubmit them.
considered in the final rule. We will three actions within 1 year of a We have incorporated previously
submit a final listing determination to proposed listing: (1) Finalize the submitted comments into the public
the Federal Register on or before March proposed rule; (2) withdraw the record, and we will fully consider them
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
15, 2018. proposed rule; or (3) extend the final in the preparation of our final
DATES: The comment period for the determination by not more than 6 determination. Our final determination
proposed rule that published September months, if there is substantial concerning the proposed listing will
15, 2016, at 81 FR 63454 is reopened. disagreement regarding the sufficiency take into consideration all written
We will accept comments received or or accuracy of the available data comments and any additional
postmarked on or before August 18, relevant to the determination. information we receive.
2017. If you comment using the Federal Since the publication of the You may submit your comments and
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), September 15, 2016, proposed listing materials concerning the proposed rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_33169/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-07-19 06:17:17
Document Modified: 2017-07-19 06:17:17
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by August 18, 2017. | |
| Contact | Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 33032 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR