Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements, 47145-47147 [2017-21777]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47145
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, APPROVED BUT NOT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued
State citation
State
effective
date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
200–0110 ..........
Public Interest Representation
4/16/2015
200–0120 ..........
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
4/16/2015
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Explanation
10/11/2017, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
10/11/2017, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
*
*
*
*
EPA-APPROVED OREGON STATE DIRECTIVES
State effective
date
State citation
Title/subject
Directive 1–4–1–601 ..............
EPA approval date
10/23/1992
11/1/2001, 66 FR 55112.
Operational Guidance for the
Oregon Smoke Management Program.
DEQ analysis and recommendations regarding
which of the proposed rules
that the EQC should require LRAPA to implement
directly.
ODEQ–LRAPA Stringency Directive, Attachment B.
4/16/2015
Explanation
10/11/2017, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
EPA-APPROVED MANUALS
Name
Adoption date
State
effective
date
ODEQ Source Sampling Manual ...
4/16/2015
4/16/2015
ODEQ Continuous Emissions Monitoring Manual.
4/16/2015
4/16/2015
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.1987 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
§ 52.1987
quality.
Significant deterioration of air
(a) The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality rules for the
prevention of significant deterioration of
air quality (provisions of OAR Chapter
340, Divisions 200, 202, 209, 212, 216,
222, 224 (except 0510(3) inter-pollutant
offset ratios), 225, and 268, as in effect
on April 16, 2015, are approved as
meeting the requirements of title I, part
C, subpart I of the Clean Air Act for
preventing significant deterioration of
air quality.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–21803 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Oct 10, 2017
Jkt 244001
EPA approval date
Explanation
10/11/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].
10/11/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].
Volumes I and II for purposes of
the limits approved into the SIP.
For purposes of the limits approved into the SIP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265; FRL–9969–
18—Region 9]
or ‘‘standards’’). The SIP submission is
intended to revise a portion of the
State’s ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP that, more
broadly, provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
standards.
This rule is effective on
November 13, 2017.
DATES:
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans;
California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of
a portion of a state implementation plan
(SIP) submission from the State of
California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for ambient
ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
47146
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA
Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
I. Background
On August 24, 2016, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted
the ‘‘Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the
San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2016
CARB Staff Report’’).1 On July 3, 2017,
we proposed to approve the portions of
the submission that address ambient
ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield
MSA pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(B),2 and refer to those portions
herein as the ‘‘2016 Bakersfield Ozone
Monitoring SIP.’’ 3 We proposed to
approve this SIP submission because we
determined that it complied with the
relevant CAA requirements, as outlined
below. Our proposed rule contains more
information on the SIP submission and
our evaluation. We provided a 30-day
public comment period on the proposed
rule, during which we received no
comments.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within a shorter period that
the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers
to such SIP submissions as
‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This final rule
pertains to infrastructure SIP
requirements for ambient air quality
monitoring.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the
form and levels of the primary and
secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour
average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).4
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.5
Each of these NAAQS revisions
triggered the requirement for states to
1 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, Region IX, EPA, August 24, 2016.
2 82 FR 30812 (July 3, 2017).
3 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H
(‘‘Bakersfield Area Monitor’’), p. 23 and Section VII
(‘‘Staff Recommendation’’), p. 24.
4 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
5 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Oct 10, 2017
Jkt 244001
submit infrastructure SIPs, including
provisions for ambient ozone
monitoring.
Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA
requires states to provide for the
establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitoring to (i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make
data available to the EPA Administrator
upon request. For the 1997 ozone and
2008 ozone NAAQS, the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area includes
several MSAs and one Combined
Statistical Area.
California made SIP submissions in
2007 and 2014 to, among other things,
address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA’s
implementing regulations for the 1997
ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA approved the submissions with
respect to the ambient monitoring
requirements with one exception: 6 We
partially disapproved the submissions
for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with
respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008
ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA,
which includes all of Kern County. Our
partial disapproval was based on the
closure of the MSA’s maximum ozone
concentration site located at Arvin-Bear
Mountain Boulevard (i.e., Air Quality
System (AQS) ID: 06–029–5001),
without EPA approval of an alternative
maximum ozone concentration site.7
CARB had operated an ozone monitor
at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard
site for 20 years, and the highest ozone
concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA
generally occurred at this site or the
Edison site (i.e., AQS ID: 06–029–0007),
which continues to operate. Upon
notification in 2009 that the site lease
would not be renewed, CARB
established a replacement site at the
Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school (i.e.,
AQS ID: 06–029–5002). This ozone
monitor site relocation had not been
approved by the EPA at the time of the
EPA’s 2014 partial disapproval of
California’s 2007 and 2014
infrastructure SIPs.
Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone
Monitoring SIP, CARB’s 2016 site
relocation request,8 and the EPA’s 2016
approval of that relocation request
(included in the SIP submission as
Appendix C to the 2016 CARB Staff
Report), the EPA concluded that the
Arvin-Di Giorgio site provided the most
similar concentrations from similar
6 81
FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016).
CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires at
least one site in each MSA to be designed to capture
the maximum ozone concentration in that MSA.
8 Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Science Division, CARB to Meredith
Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016.
7 40
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sources to the Arvin-Bear Mountain
Boulevard site and fulfilled the federal
regulatory requirement that such
replacement site be nearby and have the
same scale of representation. In
addition, we found that CARB’s site
relocation, as approved by the EPA
consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met the
substantive requirements for site
relocation under 40 CFR part 58
Appendix D, including the requirement
under section 4.1(b) to designate a site
to record the maximum ozone
concentration in the Bakersfield MSA.
II. Final Action
The underlying basis of the EPA’s
2014 disapproval has been adequately
resolved via the approved site relocation
for the maximum ozone concentration
site in the Bakersfield MSA.
Accordingly, the EPA is fully approving
the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring
SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the
1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act.
In addition, the EPA previously
approved an ozone emergency episode
plan from El Dorado County APCD as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone
and 2008 ozone NAAQS.9 That action
resolved a separate, partial disapproval
from the EPA’s 2016 rulemaking on
California’s 2007 and 2014
infrastructure SIPs. However, we
inadvertently did not remove certain
paragraphs from the California SIP that
reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus,
as an administrative matter, we are
removing the obsolete paragraphs,
specifically 40 CFR 52.223(i)(7) and 40
CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California
SIP.
III. 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 action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
9 81
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).
11OCR1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Oct 10, 2017
Jkt 244001
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 11,
2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
§ 52.223
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47147
AGENCY:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(496) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan-in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(496) The following plan was
submitted on August 24, 2016, by the
Governor’s Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A)
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
(1) CARB Resolution 16–8, dated July
21, 2016, adopting the ‘‘2016 Ozone
State Implementation Plan for the San
Joaquin Valley.’’
(2) ‘‘Staff Report, ARB Review of the
San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’ section
V.H (‘‘Bakersfield Area Monitor’’) and
Appendix C (‘‘U.S. EPA Letter
Regarding Arvin Site Relocation’’), only.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Amended]
3. Section 52.223 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(7), (l)(1), and (l)(7).
■
[FR Doc. 2017–21777 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0513; FRL–9969–12–
Region 7]
Approval of Missouri Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision from the State of Missouri for
the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and two state
statutes into the SIP to address the
requirements relating to conflicts of
interest found in section 128 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 110 of the
CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
new or revised NAAQS promulgated by
EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred
to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The
infrastructure requirements are designed
to ensure that the structural components
of each state’s air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective December 11, 2017, without
further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse comment by November 13,
2017. If EPA receives adverse comment,
we will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2017–0513, to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM
11OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47145-47147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21777]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265; FRL-9969-18--Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission
from the State of California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
requirements for ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards''). The
SIP submission is intended to revise a portion of the State's
``infrastructure'' SIP that, more broadly, provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the standards.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact
[[Page 47146]]
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On August 24, 2016, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the ``Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley
2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 CARB Staff
Report'').\1\ On July 3, 2017, we proposed to approve the portions of
the submission that address ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield
MSA pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B),\2\ and refer to those
portions herein as the ``2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP.'' \3\
We proposed to approve this SIP submission because we determined that
it complied with the relevant CAA requirements, as outlined below. Our
proposed rule contains more information on the SIP submission and our
evaluation. We provided a 30-day public comment period on the proposed
rule, during which we received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA,
August 24, 2016.
\2\ 82 FR 30812 (July 3, 2017).
\3\ 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H (``Bakersfield Area
Monitor''), p. 23 and Section VII (``Staff Recommendation''), p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within a shorter period
that the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers to such SIP submissions as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This final rule pertains to infrastructure SIP
requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the form and levels of the
primary and secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08
parts per million (ppm).\4\ On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075
ppm.\5\ Each of these NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for
states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions for ambient
ozone monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\5\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i)
monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the
EPA Administrator upon request. For the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area includes several MSAs
and one Combined Statistical Area.
California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other
things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's
implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring
requirements with one exception: \6\ We partially disapproved the
submissions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, which includes all of
Kern County. Our partial disapproval was based on the closure of the
MSA's maximum ozone concentration site located at Arvin-Bear Mountain
Boulevard (i.e., Air Quality System (AQS) ID: 06-029-5001), without EPA
approval of an alternative maximum ozone concentration site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016).
\7\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires at least one
site in each MSA to be designed to capture the maximum ozone
concentration in that MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear Mountain
Boulevard site for 20 years, and the highest ozone concentrations in
the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at this site or the Edison site
(i.e., AQS ID: 06-029-0007), which continues to operate. Upon
notification in 2009 that the site lease would not be renewed, CARB
established a replacement site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary
school (i.e., AQS ID: 06-029-5002). This ozone monitor site relocation
had not been approved by the EPA at the time of the EPA's 2014 partial
disapproval of California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs.
Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, CARB's 2016
site relocation request,\8\ and the EPA's 2016 approval of that
relocation request (included in the SIP submission as Appendix C to the
2016 CARB Staff Report), the EPA concluded that the Arvin-Di Giorgio
site provided the most similar concentrations from similar sources to
the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard site and fulfilled the federal
regulatory requirement that such replacement site be nearby and have
the same scale of representation. In addition, we found that CARB's
site relocation, as approved by the EPA consistent with 40 CFR 58.14,
met the substantive requirements for site relocation under 40 CFR part
58 Appendix D, including the requirement under section 4.1(b) to
designate a site to record the maximum ozone concentration in the
Bakersfield MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and
Science Division, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Action
The underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been
adequately resolved via the approved site relocation for the maximum
ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA. Accordingly, the EPA
is fully approving the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode
plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.\9\ That
action resolved a separate, partial disapproval from the EPA's 2016
rulemaking on California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. However,
we inadvertently did not remove certain paragraphs from the California
SIP that reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus, as an administrative
matter, we are removing the obsolete paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR
52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 81 FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735,
[[Page 47147]]
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(496) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(496) The following plan was submitted on August 24, 2016, by the
Governor's Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board
(CARB).
(1) CARB Resolution 16-8, dated July 21, 2016, adopting the ``2016
Ozone State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley.''
(2) ``Staff Report, ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan
for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' section V.H (``Bakersfield Area
Monitor'') and Appendix C (``U.S. EPA Letter Regarding Arvin Site
Relocation''), only.
Sec. 52.223 [Amended]
0
3. Section 52.223 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(7), (l)(1), and (l)(7).
[FR Doc. 2017-21777 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
